PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2014-15 (1. samling)
EUU Alm.del Bilag 208
Offentligt

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LII COSAC

Rome, Italy, 30 November - 2 December 2014

IN THE CHAIR: Mr Vannino CHITI, Chair of the EU Policies Committee, Italian

Senato della

Repubblica,

and Mr Michele BORDO, Chair of the EU Policies Committee, Italian

Camera dei

Deputati.

AGENDA:

1. Opening of the LII COSAC

- Welcome address by Mr Pietro GRASSO, President of the Italian

Senato della Repubblica.

- Introduction by Mr Vannino CHITI, Chair of the EU Policies Committee, Italian

Senato

della Repubblica,

and Mr Michele BORDO, Chair of the EU Policies Committee, Italian

Camera

dei Deputati.

- Adoption of the agenda of the LII COSAC.

- Report on the outcome of the Presidential Troika of the LII COSAC.

- Presentation of the 22nd Bi-annual Report of COSAC.

- Procedural issues.

- Letters received by the Presidency.

2. ‘State of play of the Italian Presidency of the EU Council’

Keynote speaker: Mr Matteo RENZI, President of the Italian Council of Ministers.

3. ‘The future of supranational democracy 5 years after the entry into force of the Lisbon

Treaty: What role for European institutions and national Parliaments?’

Keynote speakers: Mr Frans TIMMERMANS, First Vice-President, European Commission, Ms

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament,

Lord Timothy BOSWELL, Chair of the EU Select Committee, UK

House of Lords,

Mr Marc

ANGEL, Chair of the Foreign and European Affairs Committee, Luxembourg

Chambre des

Deputés.

4. ‘Review of the Europe 2020 Strategy: growth, employment, competitiveness’

Keynote speakers: Mr Pier Carlo PADOAN, Italian Economy and Finance Minister, Ms Danielle

AUROI, Chairwoman of the European Affairs Committee, French

Assemblée nationale,

Gunther KRICHBAUM, Chairman of the Committee on Affairs of the European Union, German

Bundestag,

Mr Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO, Member of the Finance Committee and Foreign

Affairs Committee, Spanish

Cortes Generales.

5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

- Consideration of the draft Contribution and Conclusions of the LII COSAC.

6. ‘European integration prospects: Global role of the European Union and projection of its

policies in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe’

Keynote speakers: Mr Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Vice-President, European Parliament, Mr

Claudio MARTINI, Member of the Committee on EU Policies, Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Lolita ČIGĀNE, Chair of the European Affairs Committee, Latvian

Saeima,

Mr Sandro GOZI,

Under-Secretary of State to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in charge of European

Affairs.

7. ‘Democratic control of European agencies’

Keynote speakers: Mr Morten KJÆRUM , Director of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and

Coordinator of the European Agency Network for 2014, Sir William CASH, Chair of the European

Scrutiny Committee, UK

House of Commons.

8. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the LII COSAC

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

PROCEEDINGS

Opening and procedural issues

1.1 Welcome address by Pietro GRASSO, President of the Senate of the Republic

Mr GRASSO welcomed participants to the meeting of the LII COSAC. He noted that COSAC,

especially after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, had developed into the most appropriate

forum for debating broad European policies and the role of Parliaments in the process of

integration. Considering the session on the future of supranational democracy five years after the

entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty as crucial, he said that political dialogue and the subsidiarity

checks had been very positive experiences, to be further consolidated, which had strengthened the

European awareness of national Parliaments. He recalled some specific proposals, such as the more

intense and structured involvement of national Parliaments in the pre-legislative phase and their

participation in the consultations. He mentioned the constructive interpretation promoted by the

Italian Parliament on the subsidiarity check procedure, which should contribute to ensuring a

greater quality of European law and, in general, a better functioning of the EU.

Concerning the Review of the Europe 2020 strategy, which had been the heart of the EU Council

Italian Presidency, President Grasso mentioned the December European Council, which would take

important decisions, including that on the approval of Juncker's plan. He hoped that it would be a

sign of political maturity of the EU, which, in emphasising financial discipline, had looked at short

term, without any strategic orientation towards expansion of productive capacity. He hoped that the

Commission's indication to consider the contributions to the European Fund as neutral in respect to

the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) could start a debate on the difference between current public

expenditure and capital public expenditure. Concerning the external role of the EU, President

Grasso noted that in the two areas of neighbourhood policies, the Great Mediterranean and the

Eastern borders, we should be able to respond with strategic and pragmatic political process,

providing support to the action of the High Representative and the European External Action

Service. He concluded, stressing that Parliaments wished to substantially contribute to political

choices of the EU and national Governments, pursuing more efficiency and democracy in the

decision making process, promoting growth and work, protecting individual rights and giving a

more authoritative voice to the EU in world.

1.2

Introduction by Vannino CHITI, Chairman of the Senate EU Policies Committee, and

Michele BORDO, Chairman of the Chamber EU Policies Committee

Mr CHITI recalled the economic, political and social pressures that Europe was experiencing and

the delicate issues it was facing on its Eastern and Southern borders. The weak role, and,

sometimes, the absence of Europe from these critical scenarios showed that there could not be 28

foreign and defence policies; Europe should instead speak with a single voice in a global scenario.

Concerning the challenges of the economic crisis, still on-going, he stressed that there could not be

recovery without growth and that separating the two goals of the SGP had generated the citizens'

lack of confidence. He noted that the European Semester Procedure and the Macroeconomic

Imbalance Procedure had produced a substantial centralisation of the main economic policy

decisions, but they had implemented policies neither effective nor fair. Mentioning the alarming

youth unemployment rate, he added that employment should be the first and fundamental goal.

However he stressed that, during the Italian Presidency, there were some very significant new signs,

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

to be further expanded, such as Juncker's investment plan, which should be the starting point of a

European "New Deal".

He emphasised also the need to continue the political project for strengthening Europe as a

supranational democracy and to go beyond the intergovernmental method on competencies which

were already European (foreign policy, climate changes, and guidelines on major economic

policies). He stressed the role of the European institutions and the importance of parliamentary

cooperation, developing the experiences of COSAC, CFSP/CFSD and Conference under article 13

of the Fiscal Compact.

In order to strengthen the dialogue with the European institutions, he urged the Commission to

better explain the compliance of EU documents with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles

and the European Parliament to examine the substantial contributions on the content of the

documents issued by national Parliaments. He added that national Parliaments should have the

possibility to present legislative proposals on their own initiative, when a certain number of them

requested it. In this context, COSAC should identify relevant issues of common interest. He added

that there could be a new Europe, with a federal government and a President, whose

authoritativeness came from his election and able to decide on foreign and defence policy. He

concluded noting that global challenges could not be faced only by national States and quoting "Il

manifesto di Ventotene"

on the definitive abolition of the Europe division in national Sovereign

States.

Mr BORDO, taking stock of the interparliamentary activity during the Italian Presidency, stressed

the efforts to avoid self-referential debates on the marginal role of national Parliaments or empty

claims of new or more powers to block the action of the European institutions or renationalise

common policies. Citizens were much more interested in real issues, asking Parliaments and

European institutions to re-launch growth and employment, to reduce poverty, to cancel the

unacceptable development gaps inside the Union, to manage migration flows in an effective way

and on the basis of the solidarity principle, to reduce the cost of energy, to guarantee effective

protection against organised crime and terrorism and to protect the environment and the European

territory. In this context, the role of national Parliaments could not be measured on their ability to

reach the threshold for "yellow cards" and to defend national competencies; they should affirm their

position in the European decision-making process, defining effective solutions in order to answer to

citizens' expectations. He added that this could only be achieved by acknowledging the

complementary roles of national Parliaments and the European Parliament and by replacing

competition between them with mutual trust. Mr BORDO concluded saying that the agenda focused

on the main economic, social and institutional issues and trusting that the debate would concentrate

on concrete and real topics, starting from Juncker's investment plan.

1.3 Adoption of the agenda of the LII COSAC and procedural issues

The Chair presented the draft agenda of the LII COSAC which was adopted without amendment.

Mr CHITI gave the floor to the Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat, Ms Christiana

FRYDA, who briefly presented the 22nd Bi-annual Report of COSAC, providing details on its four

chapters relating to Europe 2020, the Future of the EU-EU Institutions and Parliaments; the

Mediterranean and the role of EU Parliaments; and EU agencies and national Parliaments.

Following Ms FRYDA’s presentation, the Chair informed the participants of the results of the

meeting of the Presidential Troika of COSAC held the previous afternoon.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Mr CHITI informed that the Troika had issued a modified draft of the Contribution and the

Conclusions, incorporating amendments which the Troika was proposing to the Chairpersons

meeting. The modified texts were distributed, together with a complete folder, including all

submitted amendments. This procedure followed was in line with the letter sent by 14 Chambers on

COSAC procedures and practices and discussed during the Chairpersons meeting in July. Following

that meeting, the Italian Presidency, after consultation with the Troika, and with the assistance of

the COSAC Secretariat, had updated the document on practices regarding voting on Contributions,

drafted by the Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat in 2012.

The Chair mentioned the letters received from the Swiss and Georgian Parliament, requesting to be

invited at the COSAC meeting. After consultation with the Troika, an invitation was extended to

these Parliaments to participate as observers. Mr CHITI informed that the Italian Presidency had

invited, as an observer, Mr Raffaele Cattaneo, President of the Lombardia Regional Council,

elected President of the Conference of European Regional Legislative Assemblies (CALRE) for

2015.

He also informed about the letter sent by Mr WITTBRODT, Chair of the European Affairs

Committee of the Polish

Senat,

and supported by Mr KRICHBAUM, Chair of the European Affairs

Committee of the German

Bundestag.

The letter noted that COSAC Contributions should be shorter

and more related to the topics on the agenda of COSAC. He said that, in principle, the Italian

Presidency agreed with these recommendations; however, Mr CHITI pointed out that in the last 4

Presidencies, starting from the COSAC meeting in Dublin, the final Contributions had been more

extensive than in previous COSAC meetings and that their length had been similar to the current

draft. He added that the current draft Contribution focused exclusively on the topics on the agenda

of COSAC. Mr CHITI added that, for this reason, and independently from the substantial validity of

the amendments, the Troika was not recommending approval of certain amendments not linked to

issues to be debated during the meeting.

2. State of play of the Italian Presidency of the EU Council

Keynote speaker: Mr Matteo RENZI, President of the Italian Council of Ministers

Mr Matteo RENZI, President of the Italian Council of Ministers, recalled the 25th anniversary of

the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide and stressed that

Europe was currently at a time of historical significance, in a phase of persistent economic

stagnation and "crisis of ideals", with anti-European movements rising in all countries. He stated

that there was time for Europe to carry out its responsibility and be a place of peace and hope for

future generations.

After having congratulated Mr Donald TUSK, who had taken up office that day as the new

President of the European Council, he pointed out that Italy had taken over the six-month

Presidency of the EU in a transitional period which had caused some slowness in dealing with

European dossiers. Italy would have liked, among others, to speed up negotiations for the

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and press for progress in the Council on the

"made in" labelling for products sold on the single market.

Mr RENZI underlined that Europe was at a crossroads: either it changed its economic policy or it

was likely to become the "Cinderella of global countries". He stated that Member States had to be

loyal to the SGP and undertake the necessary structural reforms to re-launch growth. Italy was

currently dealing with reforms of the fiscal system, the Public Administration, the labour market,

civil justice, and, most importantly, school, education and research, as well as the electoral law and

constitutional reforms.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

He stressed that the Italian Presidency urged for more investments in growth and welcomed

Juncker's investment plan to kick-start growth as the right starting point, which however had to be

strengthened. He recalled the positive outcome of the EU Summit in Ypres (June 2014), where, for

the first time, the need for more investment, growth and flexibility of fiscal rules was stressed.

Mr Gunther KRICHBAUM, German

Bundestag,

pointing out that without Europe the fall of the

Berlin Wall and of the Iron Curtain would not have been possible, stressed the need for the EU to

invest more, noting however that Europe needed structural reforms to lead to good results.

Ms Athina KYRIAKIDOU, Cyprus

Vouli ton

Antiprosopon, underlined that Europe needed a fair

sharing of responsibilities for the management of migration flows, in order to avoid the rise of

xenophobia and racism in the countries receiving refugees.

Sir William CASH, UK

House of Commons,

said that the UK was not happy with the way the

architecture of the EU functioned and called for a massive radical reform.

Mr Jean BIZET, French

National Assembly,

stated that Member States had to keep order in public

finance, implement their structural reforms and that Europe needed to recreate the conditions of

economic competitiveness. He added that the EU had to finalise the Banking Union and have a

single resolution mechanism; simplify regulations; implement a single digital market and promote

the creation of an energy Union.

Mr RENZI, who, due to other engagements could only reply to the interventions above, fully agreed

with Mr KRICHBAUM's intervention about the role of Europe in the reunification of Germany, and

said that this would not have been possible without the flexibility in fiscal rules requested by the

German Government. With regard to the use of European Funds, he said that flexibility in the

application of rules was necessary, namely the exclusion of national, regional co-funding targeted to

promote growth from the calculation of the budget deficit.

With regard to migration, he agreed with Ms KYRIAKIDOU on the importance of addressing the

risk of xenophobia and said that Europe needed clear rules because indiscriminate acceptance

contributed to the rise of xenophobia and racism. He also pointed out that Mediterranean was a

European issue and that it was necessary to re-launch relationships with North Africa, based also on

economic interests. He said that unless Europe decided that the Mediterranean, and in particular

Libya, had to be dealt as a major political issue, there would be no possibility to win the battle

against uncontrolled migration; either we solved problems at the roots in the countries of origins or

we would not be credible.

Mr RENZI stressed that xenophobia was a major issue in peripheral urban areas of Europe, where it

was necessary to take action, not by disseminating anti-immigrant propaganda, but rather by

building infrastructures and providing social services and by making use of some European funds

should be dedicated to specific actions in peripheral urban areas.

Thirteen other parliamentarians took the floor during the debate.

Ms Nora ALITI, FYROM -

Sobranie of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

said that, that

year, the European Commission reconfirmed the six consecutive recommendations for FYROM to

start the membership negotiations with the EU. She urged their neighbour Greece and all the other

EU Member States to give their support so that they could open the negotiations.

Mr Vitalino CANAS, Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

expressed its support to the Italian

Presidency and the Juncker's investment plan, even if there were some points which needed to be

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

clarified. He asked whether there was support to greater flexibility in rules and if national

contributions would have been considered neutral.

Ms Lolita ČIGĀNE, Latvian

Saeima,

informed the Plenary that the upcoming Latvian Presidency

intended to build on the work done by the Italian Presidency, further focusing on the issue of

Eastern Partnership, in particular with regard to the situation in Ukraine.

Mr Michel HERBILLON, French

Assemblée nationale,

stated that it was necessary to reorient

European economic policy toward more investments for growth and employment, bring Europe

closer to citizens and renew confidence in Europe.

Mr �½uboš BLAHA, Slovak

Národná rada,

expressed his opposition to the TTIP which he

considered a threat to democracy in Europe.

Mr Sandro GOZI, Under-Secretary of State to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in charge

of European Affairs, replied that the Italian Presidency would have liked to do more in the field of

enlargement. He added that the EU had to do everything necessary to prepare the accession of all

the Western Balkans countries. He stated that Italy was pleased with what President Juncker and Mr

Jyrki KATAINEN, Vice President of the European Commission for Jobs, Growth, Investment and

Competitiveness, said in front of the European Parliament, namely that any national contributions to

Juncker's investment plan had to be considered neutral and not computed in relation to the SGP. He

concluded by saying that the Italian Government had been working with the Latvian Government

for a number of months very positively, and they hoped that, concerning Russia, the Latvian

Presidency would keep an open dialogue.

Mr Duarte MARQUES, Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

underlined the importance of having

a European migration policy and focused on the young Europeans.

Ms Theano FOTIOU, Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

stated that Mr Juncker had promised a package of

300 billion, but that there were in reality much less resources and European citizens did not know

how the European Investment Bank was supposed to foot the bill. She added that, in the end,

European citizens were going to pay the bill themselves.

Ms Agnieszka POMASKA, Polish

Sejm,

expressed Polish concerns about the raise of anti-

European sentiment and the gap between citizens and EU institutions.

Ms Biljana PANTIC PILJA, Serbia -

Narodna skupština,

stressed that membership in the EU was

one of the main priorities of the Republic of Serbia and reminded that accession negotiations were

officially opened in January, that Serbia had concluded the screening of 21 negotiating Chapters

and that it was fully ready to open Chapter 32 on financial supervision. Mr Ivan BAUER, Serbia -

Narodna skupština,

thanked the Italian

Senato della Repubblica

for having approved a resolution

concerning the accession of Serbia to the EU.

Mr Bernard DURKAN, Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

stated that Ireland welcomed the European

Investment Package and it hoped this would help to ensure growth and employment for young

Europeans.

Mr GOZI replied that TTIP was in the interest of Italy and Europe and that the lack of transparency

in negotiations had led to a number of legends. Social and environmental standards would not have

been lowered. With regards to young people, he said that Europe needed to do a lot of work on the

issue of mobility and he supported Erasmus +.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Mr GOZI also pointed out that the "non-Europe of the economic policy" and "the non-Europe of the

Immigration policy" facilitated the raise of extremist, anti-European and anti-immigration

movements. He said, in this regard, that two very important priorities of the Italian Presidency were

to be more active in policy for growth and to have a true European immigration policy which was

not just managing external borders but also having legal channels for migration. He concluded

expressing his support to Serbia's accession and saying that Italy would have been ready to open

Chapter 32.

Baroness Joyce QUIN, UK

House of Lords,

referred to the detailed report on TTIP adopted by the

House of Lords. She stated that it was very important to continue the negotiations and that a good

agreement could help the causes of growth and jobs and reduce barriers that many European

companies currently had to face. Nonetheless, she added that it was essential to make a clear

commitment not to lower employment and environmental standards.

Ms Maria João RODRIGUES, European Parliament, asked if Europe could ensure a stronger

priority for growth, investments and jobs, not only on the targets, but also on the country specific

recommendations and if the Italian Presidency could invite Member States to provide their national

contributions for Juncker's investment plan and ensure that these contributions would not be

computed for the public debt and public deficit.

Mr Kimmo SASI, Finnish

Eduskunta,

agreed that the Mediterranean was important; however, in his

opinion, Ukraine was currently the most important issue in Foreign Policy and noted that it was

necessary to guarantee the integrity of the State. He also said that investments should be on research

and development and asked the Italian Government if it respected budgetary rules.

Mr GOZI reminded the Italian engagement on the Ukraine crisis, stressing at the same time the

importance to focus on the Mediterranean. Replying to Mr SASI, he assured that Italy complied

with rules. However, according to him, the European Semester had to be much more balanced and

give importance to other related processes, particularly the review of the Europe 2020 strategy and

the 2030 framework for climate and energy.

3. The future of supranational democracy 5 years after the entry into force of the Lisbon

Treaty: What role for the European institutions and national Parliaments?

Keynote speakers: Mr Frans TIMMERMANS, First Vice-President, European Commission, Ms

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament,

Lord Timothy BOSWELL, Chair of the EU Select Committee, UK

House of Lords,

Mr Marc

ANGEL, Chair of the Foreign and European Affairs Committee, Luxembourg

Chambre des

Deputés

Mr Frans TIMMERMANS, First Vice-President of the European Commission for Better

Regulation, Interinstitutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

stated that he was committed to working more closely with national Parliaments in cooperation with

the European Parliament and underlined that balance among European institutions was of the

essence to ensure balance among nations, bringing the Council back to the forum, in order to

respect the letter and the spirit of the Treaty. In case of a "yellow card", the Commission should be

more proactive and respond on the content in a political, not a bureaucratic way, also in close

cooperation with the European Parliament, explaining its position and taking on board national

Parliaments' criticism rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds. National Parliaments should

work more closely with the European Parliament. Confrontation, he said, between the European

Parliament and national Parliaments in COSAC, experienced in the past, was sterile.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Mr TIMMERMANS added that it was also necessary to spend more time on impact assessment of

Commission proposals, stressing the need for the European Parliament and the Council to scrutinise

impact assessments along the legislative process and at the end of the process. Furthermore, he

supported the idea that national Parliaments should pay greater attention to the practicalities of the

implementation of EU legislation and stressed the importance of lightening administrative burden

on SMEs. He expressed his intention for quickly starting consultations for an Interinstitutional

Agreement for better legislation early the following year.

In combatting European citizens' disenchantment, Europe, he said, should concentrate on what

needed to be done. He concluded by expressing his conviction that there was a lot to be done within

the remit of the treaties for engaging national Parliaments in drafting legislation and in cutting red

tape.

Ms Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Chairwoman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the

European Parliament, questioned whether the use by default of the word 'supranational' to describe

the nature of EU democracy could ensure that citizens were taken on board; she added that

democratic legitimacy would not be such a challenge if the EU were ready to give itself a political

identity which was not yet the case. She stressed that the democratic legitimacy challenge would be

less daunting if Article 11 of the Treaty of Lisbon were taken more seriously, as it established the

responsibility for institutions to engage citizens in a debate and in the decision-making process. In

her view, democratic legitimacy could not be reached by declaring it as a remote target, but

democratic legitimacy was instead and should be the way in which institutions carry out their daily

work. In this regard, she expressed the hope that the European Citizens' Initiative, which was far

from realising its full potential, would be better used.

Acknowledging the existence of deficiencies in legitimation that needed to be reduced, Ms

HÜBNER said that these were partly explained by the fact that Governments' mandates in European

institutions had national scope. The European Parliament, she added, was the only democratically

elected institution, where political decision-making took place on the basis of Europe's general

interest across national borders.

Although, as the Chair stressed, the Treaty of Lisbon had introduced a reinforced role for the

European Parliament and national Parliaments providing thus a strong Treaty foundation for their

functioning, there was a need to focus on how to better use its full potential with the objective of

making Europe democratically legitimised to citizens. In this context, she underlined the new

democratic challenges, exacerbated also by the crisis, and the greater shift of competences from the

national level to the European and to institutions like the European Central Bank (ECB) with no

direct mandate from citizens. In spite of the finalisation of the internal market democracy remained

confined to national borders; the development of IT technologies boosted citizens’ interest in

participating in political processes. Stressing the need for national Parliaments, local authorities and

the European Parliament to facilitate new ways for enabling citizens' participation in decision-

making, she supported that democratic legitimacy depended also on popular accountability of

institutions which was enhanced by a change in procedures. In this respect, she mentioned that the

introduction of

Spitzenkandidaten

contributed to democratic legitimacy which could be further

enhanced by the potential increase of transparency in the work of the European Council and by a

higher turnout in the European elections, a task on which EU parliaments needed to deliver before

the next elections. She mentioned the introduction of novelties contributing to a more democratic

decision-making process in the economic governance and stressed the importance of national

Parliaments' role in it, as well as of the interplay among all levels of governance and of

interparliamentary and interinstitutional dialogue in ensuring legitimacy.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Lord Timothy BOSWELL OF AYNHO, Chairman of the EU Select Committee, UK

House of

Lords,

referred to the UK House of Lords' report on the role of national Parliaments in the European

Union published in March 2014 and said that national Parliaments, the European Parliament, the

Commission, and national Governments must work together to make the Union more democratic,

more secure and more prosperous. In this context, he expressed his disappointment that the Treaty

of Lisbon, though it enhanced the European Parliament’s role in EU law-making, failed to set out a

coherent role for national Parliaments. The "yellow card" procedure conferred upon national

Parliaments by the treaties posed, according to him, real practical difficulties casting them in a

reactive role and encouraging the former European Commission to provide a legalistic and

dismissive response to national Parliaments.

Inviting the European Commission to respond more positively to national Parliaments' concerns, he

advocated not only for improvement of the "yellow card" procedure, but also for addressing the

question how national Parliaments can, on the basis of Article 12 of the Treaty, contribute actively,

not merely re-actively, to the good functioning of the Union. In this context, he stressed, on the one

hand, the role of national Parliaments in providing democratic oversight of the actions of national

Governments, and, on the other, the need for a new approach involving national Parliaments

collectively in the development of EU policies and laws, and re-configuring of the existing political

dialogue.

He supported the letter of the Danish Folketing signed by 29 in June 2014 proposing the

establishment of a working group to develop new ways of thinking and new working practices,

underlining, at the same time, the need to avoid any false opposition between the role of national

Parliaments and that of the European Parliament and to demand genuine political dialogue between

European institutions and national Parliaments.

Mr Marc ANGEL, Chairman of the Foreign and European Affairs Committee, Luxembourg

Chambre des Deputés,

referred to the procedure in his national Parliament, explaining that

cooperation between the European Parliament and national Parliaments started at home. Members

of the European Parliament had traditionally been invited to every Committee meeting of the joint

Foreign and European Affairs Committee and, since recently, after the European Parliament plenary

week in Strasbourg to report and exchange on the activities there and in Brussels. The Chairman

added that he was planning, together with the Speaker of the Parliament, to introduce 2-3 meetings

with high representatives of the Permanent Representation of Luxembourg in Brussels.

Mr ANGEL referred also to the importance of implicating Select Committees in the process of

scrutiny and to the electronic petitions' system introduced recently in the Luxembourg Chambre des

Deputés through which the Parliament had entered into a dialogue with citizens. Furthermore, he

referred to a hearing on the TTIP organised and broadcasted recently by the Parliament.

Referring to the deepening of the political dialogue, the Chair mentioned the "green card" for

national Parliaments and the "Barroso initiative" launched in 2006 giving new perspectives to

national Parliaments and the European institutions. He also mentioned the need for a bigger role of

the Council in the interinstitutional framework, and while acknowledging the European

Commission's vagueness and delay in its responses to national Parliaments' political opinions and

reasoned opinions, he invited the Commission to respond more quickly referring to the impact of

political opinions on European legislation. He agreed that the Commissioners as well as civil

servants should be more present in the capitals and welcomed the Commission's initiative in

introducing European Semester Officers (ESOs), stressing, at the same time, the importance of

exchanging best practices in the framework of COSAC, which ensured continuity of work.

Thirty-four speakers took the floor during the debate.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

A number of speakers referred to national Parliaments' role in ensuring legislative proposals'

compliance with the principle of subsidiarity on the basis of the Treaties. Mr Michael STÜBGEN,

German

Bundestag,

and Mr Edgar MAYER, Austrian

Nationalrat,

supported the extension of the

eight-week deadline for subsidiarity checks by national Parliaments. Mr Fidias SARIKAS, Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

referred to the need of reducing the democratic deficit in Europe by

strengthening national Parliaments' role and advocated strengthening and deepening the existing

"yellow card" procedure to ensure that the European Commission was forced to amend or withdraw

a proposal. Ms Christine MUTTONEN, Austrian

Nationalrat,

said it was necessary to look into the

subsidiarity procedure, adding that, in the context of the Eurozone, more integration and more

democratic involvement were needed. Mr Krzysztof SZCERSKI, Polish

Sejm,

citing the EPPO

proposal as a "not good" example, stressed the need for dialogue with the European Commission in

this context. Lord John SHARKEY, UK

House of Lords,

referring to the findings of the 22nd Bi-

annual Report of COSAC, mentioned the support given by Parliaments to the "green card" and the

criticisms of the "yellow card" procedure. He suggested that, in order to avoid self-referential

discussions, national Parliaments would have to decide how to proceed. Mr Philippe MAHOUX,

Belgian

Sénat,

referred to collaboration between national Parliaments and the European Parliament

and to the importance of the "yellow and green cards", as part of building Europe. Mr Paulo MOTA

PINTO, Portuguese,

Assembleia da Republica,

said that we should not focus on competition with

the European Parliament but on an improved interaction with it; he further stressed the need to

focus on political dialogue with the European Parliament and the Commission on concrete issues

and to have greater interconnection among Parliaments. Ms Meritxell BATET LAMAÑA, Spanish

Cortes Generales,

referred to the increased role of national Parliaments in monitoring compliance

with the principle of subsidiarity, but warned about the possibility that this is used by Eurosceptics

and by people questioning the work of the EU and seeking to remove legitimacy from the European

Parliament. She underlined the need for national Parliaments to display institutional loyalty and

strengthen institutions, especially the European Parliament.

Mr STÜBGEN, German

Bundestag,

taking into account the growing number of first-reading

agreements on legislative proposals, invited the European Commission to make this fast-track

legislative procedure an exception, as it did not ensure citizens' involvement. Ms Tineke STRIK,

Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

agreed that the first-reading procedure should be used with caution.

Mr MAHOUX, Belgian

Sénat,

said it should be ensured that the Treaty did not dismantle the

established rules of social and environmental protection. He further added that EUROPOL and

EUROJUST were a necessity, but that they should be working on European terms on the basis of

protecting private lives.

Mr Kelvin HOPKINS, UK

House of Commons,

stated that democracy began at home and that

British voters believed that national Parliaments should have primacy. Supporting the view that the

EU was an agent of neoliberalism as it proved by supporting TTIP, he sought to restore democracy

deadly impinged by the EU, asking to bring power back to Member States.

Ms Eva KJER HANSEN, Danish

Folketing,

expressed the hope that more European Parliament

rapporteurs would visit national Parliaments and asked the First Vice-President of the European

Commission how he would involve national Parliaments in the formation of the Commission's work

programme.

Mr Gediminas KIRKILAS, Lithuanian

Seimas,

pointed out that political dialogue should be based

on cooperation between parties. In this context, he supported the idea of a working group for a

review of the role of national Parliaments. Such a working group was also supported by Mr

SARIKAS, Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

and Ms STRIK, Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

the latter hoping

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

it would be embedded also in the COSAC methodology and calling for the involvement of all

parliaments including the European Parliament.

Ms Danielle AUROI, French

Assemblée nationale,

stressed the need to tackle citizens'

disenchantment and to restore citizens' confidence by associating national Parliaments with the

European Parliament and by reflecting on the key moments of the European Semester in the

concretisation of the budget plans.

Ms FOTIOU, Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

asked the First Vice-President of the European Commission

whether he approved the pressure exerted by the Troika ((European Central Bank, European

Commission and International Monetary Fund) on the Greek Government to proceed with further

cuts on pensions of already starvation levels and asked him to act in order to enforce the relevant

articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Mr René LEEGTE, Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

supported that COSAC should be concrete and practical

with less plenaries, fewer long speeches, more parliamentary initiatives and more informal

meetings, in order for it to be more effective. He referred to an academic research report of the

Tweede Kamer

on parliamentary practices to be presented at the beginning of December and invited

parliamentarians to attend a "cluster of interest" meeting on further parliamentary cooperation

organised on 19th January 2015.

Mr Jean BIZET, French

Sénat,

said, among others, that qualified majority voting should be the rule

in Council meetings and enhanced cooperation should be used in sectors such as energy.

Furthermore, he invited the Commission to respond more quickly to national Parliaments' opinions.

The extension of the use of qualified majority voting was also supported by Mr Angel

TÎLVĂR,

Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor.

Mr Dominic HANNIGAN, Irish

Houses of Oireachtas,

suggested that the Speakers' of national

Parliaments should be sent the Commission's letter of intent on the forthcoming legislative

programme at the same time as this would be sent to the other institutions. He further suggested that

a yearly one-day meeting between national Parliaments and the European Commission should be

organised to discuss topical issues.

Ms Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ, European Parliament, stressed the need for more

interparliamentary cooperation in order to perfect existing tools, for efficiency when giving answers

to citizens and for enhanced collaboration for solving citizens’ problems.

Some speakers referred to the TTIP. Mr Peter FRIEDRICH, German

Bundesrat,

asked how the

process should be approached, appealing that the TTIP should be considered a mixed agreement

and underlining the need for information-sharing and for linking the negotiation process with

Parliaments, given national Parliaments’ role in ratifying it. Mr Jozef VISKUPIĈ, Slovak

Narodna

rada,

said that the process had to be made more transparent, while Mr BLAHA, Slovak

Narodna

rada,

advocated more involvement and more respect by the Commission towards national

Parliaments. Ms Lolita ČIGĀNE, Latvian

Saeima,

asked how the Commission could help national

Parliaments to discuss the TTIP more thoroughly and move beyond related stereotypes.

Referring to delegated acts, Mr Andrzej GAŁAŻEWSKI, Polish

Sejm,

said that they eliminated

national Parliaments from the debate on legislative change and asked the First Vice-President of the

Commission to reflect on abolishing the procedure. Mr MAYER, Austrian

Bundesrat,

said that the

procedure should not be used at the expense of drafting good legislation.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Ms STRIK, Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

suggested dedicating in final proposals of the Commission a

paragraph on national Parliaments' views expressed in the Commission's public consultations along

with the Commission's motivated response and improving transparency in the workings of the

Council.

On enlargement, Ms Majlinda BREGU, Albanian

Kuvendi i Shqipërisë,

urged for the enlargement

process not to be postponed and said that the process needed to be credible and measurable, while

Mr Mehmet TEKELİOĞLU, Turkish

Büyük Millet Meclisi,

reiterated the Turkish Government's

commitment to Turkey's EU accession.

In response to the interventions, Mr ANGEL, Luxembourg

Chambre des Deputés,

referring to

EUROPOL and EUROJUST, mentioned the importance of data protection and national Parliaments'

dialogue with representatives of these agencies. He expressed his disappointment about the fact that

national Parliaments had not got a positive response to their letter requesting considering the TTIP a

mixed agreement. On enlargement, he agreed that the process should be a measurable one.

Lord BOSWELL, UK

House of Lords,

said the debate in COSAC was characterised by common

purpose and common understandings. Technical issues on the subsidiarity mechanism had been

understood. He stressed the need to find answers to problems together and to engage in dialogue

with the active involvement of the European Parliament as well. He supported the establishment of

a working group on the role of national Parliaments proposed by the Danish Folketing without

delay.

Ms HÜBNER, European Parliament, defended trilogues in European decision-making stressing that

many important issues related to democratic legitimacy were discussed during these meetings; in

the case of cohesion, following negotiations, a policy more responsive to citizens' needs was

achieved. On the TTIP, she underlined that beyond sectoral aspects often discussed, the strategic

importance of the agreement should be mentioned and the need for the EU and US to agree on

common regulatory standards in order to withstand pressure from other global players in the future.

On the role of national Parliaments, she stressed the existing forms of interparliamentary

cooperation besides COSAC, emphasising the role not only of the Committees on European Affairs,

but also of the interparliamentary meetings with sectoral committees of national Parliaments and

calling for the extension of the scope of cooperation and more visits from Commissioners and

rapporteurs to national Parliaments. She added that treaties were respected and that

intergovernmental agreements signed as a result of the crisis were in the process of being

incorporated to the treaties. She said further that parliamentarians had a role in addressing

challenges of anti-systemic and anti-European phenomena at national level where politics was

made. On the banking union, she stressed how the European Parliament had made efforts to ensure

increased parliamentary scrutiny in the process. On the Eurozone, she said that the EU had

improved at handling heterogeneity in Europe.

Ms TIMMERMANS, First Vice-President of the European Commission, emphasising that the

trilogues involved also the Council, stressed the necessity of engaging with the Council and

revitalising its role, especially that of the General Affairs Council; the outcome of the legislative

process was largely dictated by the work of the Council. He encouraged parliamentarians to engage

with their national Governments and put pressure on Member States regarding the legislative

process. On delegated acts and implementing acts he stated they were a consequence of the way the

co-legislators legislated. He added that both the European Parliament and national Parliaments were

directly elected by citizens, underlining the need to cooperate in order to improve public perception

of European institutions. He urged national Parliaments to make a strong case for the importance of

respecting the rule of law at national level and invited them to bring global challenges that could not

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

be faced by individual Member States to the discussion. On the TTIP, he encouraged common work

and precise analysis of the reality.

4. Review of the Europe 2020 Strategy: Growth, Employment, and Competitiveness

Keynote speakers: Mr Pier Carlo PADOAN, Italian Economy and Finance Minister, Ms Danielle

AUROI, Chairwoman of the European Affairs Committee, French

Assemblée nationale,

Gunther KRICHBAUM, Chairman of the Committee on Affairs of the European Union, German

Bundestag,

Mr Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO, Member of the Finance Committee and Foreign

Affairs Committee, Spanish

Cortes Generales

The Chair, Mr BORDO, Italian

Camera dei Deputati,

reminded the audience that many

Parliaments/Chambers indicated in the COSAC Bi-annual Report that the goals of Europe 2020

strategy could not be reached without adapting the economic policy framework.

Mr BORDO emphasised two steps towards recovery: first, reaching a proper balance between the

needs for fiscal consolidation and for re-launching the economy, accompanied by relevant structural

reforms and investments in sectors with a high growth and employment potential. This would also

involve implementing the major public and private investment programme put forward by the

European Commission, and would constitute a major step forward in the Union's approach, as

called for in particular by Italy and other Member States. A second step towards economic recovery

would consist in a duly flexible and stepwise approach in the application of EU finance rules for

Member States which had undertaken structural reforms and which want to finance investments

aimed at re-launching growth and employment. He acknowledged that, for the first time, Juncker's

investment plan excluded from the computation of the debt thresholds the resources allocated to

investments; this rule should be extended to resources for co-funding investments supported by

structural funds.

Mr Pier Carlo PADOAN, Italian Economy and Finance Minister, noted that the issue of growth and

employment must lie at the very core of Europe's economic policy. Mr PADOAN believed that

growth in Europe was somehow taken for granted, although the requirement for sustained growth

must never be lost from sight, from the creation of internal market through the Lisbon Strategy and

to the Europe 2020 strategy. Among current issues, he mentioned lack of demand and, at the same

time, lack of supply, as well as loss of momentum in the capacity to invest in European economy.

There were also many governance issues at the European level.

Mr PADOAN presented the Italian Presidency’s view on how a European growth structure could be

put together. First, structural reforms had to be made, so as to improve productivity in the Member

States. He noted the spillover effect within a highly integrated European Union, as any structural

reforms carried out in one country provide immediate flow-on benefits to other Member States. A

second structural pillar was provided by the single internal market, where many sectors still have to

be better integrated, such as in energy, services, communication. He added that integration had a

global dimension and that a greater integration between the European economy and other

economies, such as the US economy, would have a strong impact on growth. Third, a solid

investment policy is called for, in order to stimulate, at the same time, demand and supply and make

use of the opportunities offered by widespread structural reforms. He referred to the Commission's

investment plan, noting that the key point was how that investment policy would be able to

integrate, or not, within the Structural Reform policy. In this regard, the mid-term review would be

of utmost importance, as investment plans are among the priorities which should be a key to a

review of Europe 2020 strategy.

In conclusion, Mr PADOAN called for binding new projects in the Member States to these

European priorities, especially when formulating projects within the fields of energy and

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

infrastructure, where the public action could fill "market failures" and produce a strong lever effect.

At the long term, he called for unifying the capital market and for taking tangible steps towards

achieving a capital market union and fiscal union despite the need of partial transfer of national

sovereignty, since such steps are requisite for long term growth.

Ms AUROI, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the French

Assemblée nationale,

made

several observations on the upcoming mid-term review, further to the recent evaluation carried out

by the European Affairs Committee of the French

Assemblée nationale.

First, she underscored the importance of staying true to the main objectives and targets of this

strategy, setting out common priorities accordingly and most importantly, following through and

implementing them. To that day, the implementation part had been deemed problematic, and even

catastrophic in terms of the results achieved in the fight against poverty and employment targets.

Ms AUROI pointed out that lack of visibility and a lack of a sense of buy-in or ownership on the

part of the stakeholders had been some of the main reasons why this Strategy has not been properly

implemented. A political will to implement this Strategy was needed from both the European

Commission and the Member States.

The European Affairs Committee offered suggestions for achieving growth through a truly social

Europe, implementing the Youth Employment Guarantee, setting a European minimum salary

differentiated by country, and by investing in common fight against poverty. Moreover, no goals

could be reached without the Union being given stronger means to act, especially in budgetary

matters. In that context, Ms AUROI praised the investment plan announced by Mr Junker as a step

in the right direction, albeit not enough to reach the ambitious goals set out by Europe 2020

strategy.

Mr Gunther KRICHBAUM, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the German

Bundestag,

recalled the importance of holding a vision for Europe's future. One of those visions was that the

EU become the most growth-promoting and innovative region in the world. A strategy and further

initiatives were needed to achieve that vision, and that was already on the table: the Europe 2020

strategy. Mr KRICHBAUM assessed that the issue was in not keeping up with our own promises, in

not fulfilling those goals that we ourselves had set.

He agreed that more growth was needed which would, in turn, lead to more employment. He

reminded the audience that that was why the SGP had been created at that time. He also reminded

that the 3% deficit threshold was built-in as a deliberate way of saying – if we go into debt, that

money had to be invested in innovations, jobs etc.

The second point stressed by Mr KRICHBAUM was lack of credibility. If objectives and rules set

out in Europe 2020 strategy were not taken seriously by the very people who had made those rules,

nobody would then take them seriously. He invited to review the strategy, but then to apply what

would be decided. There were difficulties in many countries, but there were also opportunities that

need to be seized and developed.

As one good example, Mr KRICHBAUM mentioned the dual vocational training system in

Germany, which helped young people with training and employment. He called for solidarity in

tackling youth unemployment in the EU Member States, since in some areas youth unemployment

reached worrisome levels. Mr KRICHBAUM concluded by saying that Europe 2020 strategy was a

good strategy that must be forcefully applied.

Mr Juan MOSCOSO HERNÁNDEZ DEL PRADO, Member of the Finance Committee and

Foreign Affairs Committee in the Spanish

Cortes Generales,

indicated that the main issue is

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europe's sluggish growth, emphasising that Europe needed to devise common solutions to its

common problems. Europe 2020 strategy, in his view, did not offer that solution.

He presented his view on what Europe should do to avoid the risks of deflation and stagnation. Any

solution should first include means of boosting Europe's overall demand. Second, reforms and a

shift from the current policies favouring austerity, as these policies were seen as breeding injustice

and inequality. He stressed that higher levels of investment were needed. They would in turn lead to

better productivity, facilitate enhanced labour mobility and quality of employment, improve social

inclusion, and increase GDP by letting more women access the work market.

Mr MOSCOSO HERNÁNDEZ DEL PRADO also touched upon energy and investment issues.

Current large-scale development of shale gas resources in the US will significantly lessen the cost

of energy in the US, affecting investments in Europe.

He stood firmly against the austerity policies imposed by liberalism and economic dogma, stating

that they could lead to worse consequences than the economic crisis itself. The way forward should

be found in more efficient growth policies, more investment and policies lowering unemployment

levels, as well as sound fiscal incentives.

Twenty-five speakers took the floor during the debate.

Ms Maria João RODRIGUES, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European

Parliament, recalled that the Lisbon strategy, which combined reforms and investments with

measures of fiscal consolidation, had weak implementation means. For the success of the Europe

2020 strategy, it was essential to re-focus on investments and ensure the balance between them,

reforms and responsible fiscal consolidation. She argued that the European Parliament should deal

with EU institutions, while national Parliaments should deal with the European Commission and

national governments. In order to reconcile rebalancing the budgets and getting back to recovery

and job creation, national Parliaments could act in close coordination with their respective

Governments on the Annual growth Survey and specific initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy

before they were on the agenda of the Council and the European Council; they could also urge

Governments to exclude national contributions for the Junker plan from deficit and debt.

Mr Norbert SPINRATH, German

Bundestag,

agreed that the low level of investments was one of

the key issues, as well as goals not always being taken seriously enough. Nevertheless, set rules

may need to be fine-tuned during their real-world implementation, so as to reflect evolving

situations. He pointed out that SGP is not only about stability but also about growth, which has to

be put in practice by making use of opportunities and reducing red tape.

Sir William CASH, UK

House of Commons,

stood up for having a deregulation programme so that

businesses, especially small and medium-sized, could generate the jobs indispensable to further

growth.

Mr Ioannis TRAGAKIS, Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

deemed it impossible to respect our own

commitments in the social field if we keep to the current policy of austerity measures. He was

supported by Mr Maximos CHARAKOPOULOS, Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

who pointed out

that austerity policy could not be the only way out of the crisis, and therefore that a new policy is

needed to regain balance in Europe. Ms FOTIOU, Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

questioned the

credibility of the whole European project should the goals set by the EU not be achieved, owing to

draconian austerity measures. These may lead to a limited ability of some Member States to remain

competitive, and hence to growing gaps in equality. She asked the panel how Europe 2020 strategy

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

could redefine its priorities and goals in order to alleviate the worrisome situation arising in

countries worst hit by the crisis.

Ms Aideen HAYDEN, Irish

Seanad Éireann,

believed that the headline targets of the strategy

continue to be relevant. However, she made a recommendation for the following improvements:

first, the introduction of qualitative measures within the targets, e.g., job

quality

targets to promote

job sustainability. Second, the Strategy should move away from the one-size-fits-all approach in

achieving its targets and it is vitally important that regional inequalities within the EU be addressed;

also, the Strategy would benefit from some decentralisation. Third, the social indicators set out in

the alert mechanism report should be used to monitor any negative social outcomes, and to promote

positive measures.

Ms Riitta MYLLER, Finnish

Eduskunta,

expressed support for the new initiative by the European

Commission on investment plans, but called for combining it with the Europe 2020 strategy, as only

that would bring substance to Juncker's investment plan.

Mr Pavel GAMOV Swedish

Riksdag,

stood against any further European integration, calling for

more integration among EU Member States themselves. Thus, in his view the Europe 2020 strategy

had to be either thoroughly reformed or abolished.

Mr Yıldırım Mehmet RAMAZANOĞLU, Turkish

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi,

stated that Europe

2020 provided solid guidelines for Turkey in its reform process, but would like to understand how

Europe sees the place of Turkey within this strategy and what will be its positive impact on Turkey

by 2020.

Mr Carl SCHLYTER, Swedish

Riksdag,

suggested that resources efficiency and cost effective

investment policies could lead the way out of the current crisis, and that recovery shall remain

elusive as long as Europe heavily depended on imported energy. He suggested that the time had

come to stop talking about growth and devising complex plans, but we should get down to work

with a newly creative approach.

Mr STÜBGEN, German

Bundestag,

touched upon the structural reforms and the European

Semester, calling on the European Commission to provide realistic and practicable

recommendations. Otherwise, such recommendations might mainly stay on paper, instead of being

acted upon urgently.

Mr Kelvin HOPKINS, UK

House of Commons,

criticised the economic policies in the Eurozone

and expressed his support to devolving economic and financial powers back to the Member States.

Mr Nico SCHRIJVER, Dutch

Eerste Kamer

re-emphasised the need for transparency towards the

citizenry at national levels on the use of EU funds. He informed of a Dutch Parliament initiative

calling upon the Government to submit to the Parliament an official national declaration on the use

of such funds, and asked the colleagues if such an initiative could be supported in their respective

countries.

Mr Jozef VISKUPIČ, Slovak

Narodna rada,

stressed the need for real instruments in order to

implement key visions and strategies, such as genuine economic diplomacy.

Mr Peter FRIEDRICH, German

Bundesrat,

promoted investing in education, training and research

as the solution, leading to skilled people working on innovative solutions, and designing better-

quality, competitive products for world markets.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Mr Nuno MATIAS, Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

supported the view that without growth

and competitiveness, the goals set out by Europe 2020 strategy would never be reached, and invited

to make full use of the new initiative by the European Commission on investments, and of a

possible new free trade agreement with the US and Canada so as to help the recovery of Europe's

economic performance.

Mr BLAHA, Slovak

Narodna rada,

called for establishing a social and economic democracy,

letting workers participate in the decision-making process of the companies they work for, and the

creation of special worker funds.

Mr Edmund WITTBRODT, Polish

Senat,

expressed his support for the policy set out in Europe

2020 strategy and agreed with those who deemed essential the overall roles of innovation and

growth. His Committee suggested binding up the European Semester with the strategy in order to

lighten fiscal burdens, so as to free up resources becoming available for investment into

infrastructure and other projects.

Mr Pablo CASADO BLANCO, Spanish

Cortes Generales,

singled out in his remarks two key

points - the need to align the Growth and Stability pact with other plans, in light of the recent G20

summit, and the need to take full advantage of a possible free trade agreement with the US.

Mr Svein Roald HANSEN, Norway

Stortinget,

agreed with the view that economic growth and

employment had to take center stage, and TTIP could contribute to that aim. Norway, he added,

welcomed the European Commission's dialogue with EFTA countries in this regard. He also

stressed the need for good cooperation on energy and climate issues to enable reaching ambitious

targets at the Paris conference next year.

Mr Jean BIZET, French

Sénat,

pointed out three key issues: first, focus on research and

development, with the current target of 3% deemed inadequate. Second, the need to invest within

the European Energy Union, and third, the need to reinvest into governance of the internet and

digital world. Europe must have its own funds earmarked for that purpose, and be more daring.

Mr Averof NEOFYTOU, Cypriot

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

firmly backed the need to predicate

European economic growth upon budget discipline. Hard work and less talk were needed to push

through reforms. He also stressed the need to implement the digital agenda. The latter was also Mr

Jožef HORVAT, Slovenian

Državni Zbor

's key message, who stressed that the Digital Agenda

remains one of the most important flagship initiatives in need of implementation.

Responding to this lively debate, Mr PADOAN commented on three issues: first, whether the

overall European solution should be the result of a sum of national policies, or rather whether a

genuine, separate European policy was needed. In his view, national solutions were fundamental,

but not sufficient. Second, the complexity of the issues facing us calls for deploying all available

tools and binding them together within a common framework. Third, the establishment of common

institutions can be instrumental in taking the right social and economic policy decisions.

Ms AUROI agreed with those calling for a more efficient and fairer Europe. In her view, a key was

social Europe; she called for establishing a basic minimum wage in Europe, which would be set at

different levels in each country, but which would send a strong signal. Second, simplification of the

administrative systems was needed. Third, a need to agree on priorities within the 350 billion euro

investment package, among which the implementation of the European energy and climate package,

the digital world, and research should be present. Fourth, a need to ensure security within the EU

and at its borders, and finally, transparency issues needed to be better tackled.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Mr KRICHBAUM summed up the debate by saying that the overarching question was: how do

we kick-start our economies? The solidarity principle was a key factor as Europeans could learn a

great deal from each other. He cited the example of the Baltic States, which went through equally

stringent measures even before the crisis had hit the rest of the EU, and which showed that it is was

possible to clean up one's act and to then return to growth. He reiterated his view that the main task

was to implement agreed-upon targets, education and research being those where most efforts must

be concentrated. He pointed out that since Europe was a high-cost area, it needed to be better than

everyone else to stay competitive on the global stage.

Mr MOSCOSO HERNÁNDEZ DEL PRADO concluded that there was consensus that the

objectives of Europe 2020 strategy are not reached, because the reforms were not enabled by

corresponding investments. He called for a new fiscal and economic policy within the SGP, which

would include new and different incentives. These would include transparency and accountability

for macroeconomic policies, as mentioned by the Dutch member. No improvement was foreseen as

long as the objectives did not comply with what happened in the field - as a case in point, the drastic

reduction of Spain's education budget went against the objectives set out in the strategy.

5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

The Chair, Mr CHITI, informed the Chairpersons that they had received a text which incorporated

the proposals recommended for approval by the Troika, following the Troika meeting that had taken

place the previous day, as well as the complete list of the amendments tabled both before the

meeting and until the deadline of 12pm of that day, set by the Presidency. Mr CHITI then invited

the Chairpersons to discuss all the amendments paragraph by paragraph, starting with the

Contribution. Following a long debate and voting in cases of controversy, a further amended text of

the Contribution and Conclusions of the LII COSAC was agreed by the Chairpersons.

6. European integration prospects: Global role of the EU and projection of its policies in the

Mediterranean and Eastern Europe

Keynote speakers: Mr Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Vice-President, European Parliament, Mr

Claudio MARTINI, Member of the Committee on EU Policies, Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Lolita ČIGĀNE, Chair of the European Affairs Committee, Latvian

Saeima,

Mr Sandro GOZI,

Under-Secretary of State to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in charge of European

Affairs

Mr CHITI introduced the topic under discussion, focusing on the challenges that the EU was facing

at its borders. Concerning the issues that the Eastern Partnership countries were facing following

Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Mr CHITI underlined that unilateral changes in the borders of

states were not acceptable, and though the EU did not want a new Cold War, it could not sacrifice

values on which peaceful coexisting of people were founded. With regard to the Mediterranean, the

Chair noted that open conflicts were in progress, destabilising the region, such as civil wars in

Libya and Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the unresolved issue in Cyprus, and urged for

actions providing for the integration of countries in the Western Balkans. He also noted that

barbaric forces in the area, exploiting religion, undertaking bloody actions and taking advantage of

areas of lower development, as well as poverty, immigration and evictions of Christians in the

Middle East were adding up to the unease of the region. Mr CHITI underlined that Europe must

have a common firm policy built on the principle of peace regarding these issues and concluded by

noting that the Eastern and Mediterranean regions were both equally important and that discussions

among parliamentarians and the European institutions should continue regardless of which Member

State held the Presidency expressing solid commitment in that regard.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Mr BORDO noted that the weakness of Europe´s actions in the Mediterranean highlighted certain

problem areas in the European construction, namely the lack of a common European foreign policy,

even in the areas closest to the EU and a shared policy on migration flows, as well as the inability to

respond to people´s expectations. He noted that Italy was left alone to deal with a real humanitarian

crisis that brought 160.000 migrants to the country during 2014 - an increase of 400% compared to

2013. He recalled the Italian operation Mare Nostrum, which, only recently, hesitantly replaced by

the EU operation Triton, saved 100.000 lives. He concluded by highlighting three points which he

regarded necessary to improve the EU approach to migration flows: strengthening cooperation with

countries of origin and transit of migrants by developing mobility partnerships programmes for

region protection; assigning the process of application for asylum to diplomatic posts of the EU in

third countries; distributing migrants who had the right to asylum according to the provisions of

article 80 TFEU.

Mr Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Vice-President of the European Parliament, outlined that

since its creation in 2004, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was more necessary than ever

and its objectives more than ever before at risk. The Vice-President recalled that the ENP was

created in order to promote a zone of stability, security and wellbeing in the east and south of the

EU and that democratic movements such as in Tunis in 2011 had shown how citizens fought for a

better life, liberty and respect of human and fundaments rights. However, he noted, that in the

previous months-Libya, Syria, Ukraine or the Palestinian Territories where a third Intifada was

possible, had been subject to political, economic and security crisis. In the light of these crisis, the

objectives of the ENP became more important than ever: supporting social and structural changes,

promotion of the rule of law, respect of human rights and transition of market economies by

guarantying security and prosperity of their citizens. Mr VALCÁRCEL SISO explained that to this

end, the EU made use of various incentives; namely: economic, based on the principle of more

payments for more reforms; political, establishing a dialogue on human rights, migration and visas

based on Association Agreements; trade, by providing privileged access to the European market. At

the same time, noted Mr VALCÁRCEL SISO, the EU brought those countries closer to itself by

favouring the adoption of European law and standards and creating comparative advantages for

European businesses with regard to third countries.

In relation to the reaction of the EU to its neighbourhood crisis, Mr VALCÁRCEL SISO stated that

the EU had introduced a growing differentiation based on the progress and the reforms delivered by

its partners. The European Parliament constantly supported those strategic changes; the action plans

established with the EU partners and adjusted to their needs and expectation; bilateral relations with

the EU in the framework of the ENP were complementary to the multinational relations which took

place in the framework of other fora. He stressed that it was important to conduct a common

reflection at the EU level and at the level of national Parliaments on the ways to modify European

policies in a constantly changing world.

On the South of the Mediterranean, Mr VALCÁRCEL SISO called for the support of the growing

Tunisian democracy. He then underlined the necessity of EU mediation for the reconstruction of

national unity in Libya and stressed the need for assistance from the international community in

order for Lebanon and Jordan to face the refugee flows from Iraq and Syria.

In Eastern Europe, Mr VALCÁRCEL SISO noted with concerned the escalation of violence in

Ukraine and Putin´s vision of a new Russia. The Vice-President mentioned that Mr Putin was

promoting a policy of Russian integration with countries of the Eurasian area and in some cases he

even used the so-called "hybrid war". In all those countries, Russia, advocates that governments

decentralise competences and give great autonomy to Russian-speaking areas, which in many cases

are areas of great geostrategic importance, such as in the case of Crimea. Responding to Russia´s

pressure on Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, noted Mr VALCÁRCEL SISO, the EU had signed

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Associations Agreements with those countries, as well as temporary trade preferences and the

European Parliament had ratified them. He also underlined that the European Parliament supported

greater implication of the EU in the countries of the ENP. In that regard, he stressed the importance

of parliamentary diplomacy.

Mr VALCÁRCEL SISO noted that EU´s credibility in the international sphere would greatly

depend on the success or not of its efforts to stabilise its neighbouring area and urged for faster

reaction to political changes in the neighbourhood and a demonstration of real political leadership.

He also called for coherence among Member States, among EU institutions and between Member

States and EU institutions, and underlined the role of the European Parliament and national

Parliaments in demanding and guarantying that coherence. He also stressed the inability of

individual Member States to deal with global challenges and argued that the world needed the

return of the reunited EU to the international sphere.

Mr Claudio MARTINI, Member of the Committee on EU Policies,

Italian Senato della Repubblica,

co - rapporteur with Mr Giovanni Mauro on an inquiry carried out by the Committee on the

situation in the Middle East referred to the results of this inquiry. He underlined the fact that the

macro-region of the Mediterranean, despite its diversities, should be considered as coherent and

mentioned the varied intensity of cooperation with neighbouring countries, which was defined by

many parameters, mainly protection of human rights and compliance with the rule of law, but also

by political aspects: for instance the "Arab Springs" of 2011 and their consequences should be taken

into account in the overall evaluation of the intensity of relations with those countries. He also

pointed out the fact that, unlike some countries of the Eastern Partnership, third countries of the

Mediterranean did not have the prospect of entering the Union. However, that should not limit the

areas of cooperation with those countries, especially since the strategic priority to the South of the

Union needed to be restored to balance American and Chinese activities in the area and to balance

the fact that the latest EU enlargement was to the North and to the East. In that regard, Mr

MARTINI underlined that neo-colonial logic should be totally disregarded and new philosophy and

instruments should be adopted. He also pointed out that the Barcelona process had already lost its

momentum and that the cooperation with the countries of the Mediterranean should overcome the

limits of bilateralism and be launched on a community approach. In particular, Mr MARTINI

mentioned models based on decentralised cooperation, capable of giving proper value to sub-

national levels and partnerships, with the necessary flexibility to ensure the feasibility of the

programmes and giving priority to the cultural and youth sector.

Mr MARTINI made some additional points: regarding the institutional process he noted that new

legitimacy should be given to the process of North and South institutional collaboration, as well as a

new political reference framework should be adopted; regarding the conditions of the institutional

progress, he noted that it should be based on an equal footing and on the principle of reciprocity; as

regards the social and cultural dimension, he emphasised that the Mediterranean must be a concrete

opportunity for growth and employment of younger generations. He concluded with a reference to

the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe, which proposed a European Strategy for

the Mediterranean envisaging decentralised multilevel cooperation and providing a link between the

north and the south of the Mediterranean.

Mrs Lolita ČIGĀNE, Latvian

Saeima,

Chair of the EU affairs committee, emphasised that the

year 2014 was indeed the year of radical challenges, the ‘moment of truth’ for the ENP. She

stressed that military expansion of Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq, Syria and Libya, as well as

Russia’s blatant aggression in Ukraine significantly destabilised the EU’s Southern and Eastern

regions.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

She stressed that those two regional policies must not be opposed to each other neither in official

statements, nor in the ‘behind-the-scenes’ bargaining process and in fighting for funding.

She stressed that the Eastern Partnership would be one of the priorities during the Latvian

Presidency and that the Riga Summit should set in motion a fundamental revision of it. She

mentioned that many practical matters should be considered during the Riga Summit, for instance,

taking stock of the signed Association Agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and

searching for new cooperation models in the areas of mutual interest with Belarus, Azerbaijan and

Armenia.

She added that along those practical matters, an in-depth discussion had to be conducted on at least

two outstanding key political issues; firstly, the need to set clear and fair goals within the Eastern

Partnership addressing the question of what the outcome of that initiative should be for those

partner countries with a true aspiration to join the EU; and secondly, the need to address the

question how to build relations with Russia.

Ms ČIGĀNE expressed the firm conviction that the reviewed Eastern Partnership must convey a

clear political message that Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia would have an opportunity to start EU

accession negotiations at some point in future, after completing all the required democratic reforms

and ensuring compliance with the set criteria. However, regardless the lengthy reform process, a

clear perspective of accession would be the best motivation to make serious and significant reforms

in the Partnership countries.

In her view, the Eastern Partnership should be diversified with a tailored approach to each specific

partner country. She informed that the Riga Summit would seek to agree on relevant roadmaps

including strong and supportive signals for Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, with a perspective on

either accession or a special privileged economic and political partnership in distant future.

On Russia she noted, that Putin's Russia had been escalating the conflict aimed at the reacquisition

of control over former Soviet area. Annexation of Crimea, arming of Donbas separatists, as well as

involvement of regular Russian army units, on the Ukrainian territory attested Putin`s imperialist

goals.

She pointed out that, before restarting EU’s relations with Russia, a radical change in Russia's

behaviour was needed. First, Russia must respect the sovereignty and full territorial integrity of

Ukraine. That would allow the EU to withdraw the majority of sanctions. Second, and more

importantly, Russia had to fully recognise the European choice of the Ukrainian, Georgian and

Moldovan people. She added that unfortunately Russia was showing no signs of willingness to de-

escalate the conflict and that its troops were still present in Ukraine.

She stressed the EU’s solidarity and ability to find a solution in the most difficult situations. She

called for the EU to speak clearly and straightforwardly with Russia.

Mr MAURO, Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

co - rapporteur on an inquiry carried out by the

Committee on the situation in the Middle East, stressed the need to consider the Mediterranean as a

macro-region. Inside of the macro region, there are number of problems and prospects, but all of

great meaning, what will determine the future of Europe. He stressed that Europe had duties

towards future generations and had to focus on the Mediterranean perspective. He emphasised the

need to work on high level university education and to have religious and cultural interconnection.

He proposed to set up a bank of the Mediterranean.

Twenty-seven parliamentarians took the floor in the subsequent debate.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Mr Norbert SPINRATH, German

Bundestag,

expressed the opinion that the ENP had to be adapted

to the present circumstances, as certain things had gone wrong. It was very important to take into

account not only national, but regional and local authorities, and involve them in the ENP. He was

convinced that, if the EU would build the ENP, it had to be done from bottom up rather than top-

down perspective.

Mr TRAGAKIS, Hellenic

Vouli ton Ellinon,

recalled the readiness to give new impetus to the

implementation of projects in the Mediterranean expressed at the first summit of the Speakers of the

Parliaments of the Union for the Mediterranean organised in April 2013. He called for greater

economic support for the FRONTEX, in order to better protect .the southern border of the EU and

referred to the discovery of important hydrocarbon reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean and

Cyprus which may serve as a catalyst for regional cooperation to the benefit of the peoples in both

sides of the Mediterranean.

Mr Jerome LAMBERT, French

Assemblée nationale,

stated that the current armed conflicts in both

regions marked the failure of the international community and that the EU was risking losing its

influence. He expressed hope for new democracy in Ukraine and called on the EU to have a

dialogue with all stakeholders and with Russia, adding that we must give political support to the

people of Crimea. He added that Europe had to be present in international diplomacy, as well as in

the military sphere.

Mr Andrzej GAŁAŻEWSKI, Polish

Sejm,

argued that Europe was against having a cold war, but in

reality there was a hot war at Europe`s borders. He stressed that the new ENP and new CFSP were

very important with regard to foreign policy. The problems in the South and in the East were

different: in the Mediterranean region there were internal problems in individual countries, but in

the Eastern region there was an aggressor, an imperial country. He said that there were frozen

conflicts in Azerbaijan and Armenia and that these could be activated at any point.

Mr Joan SABATE I BARRAS, Spanish

Cortes Generales

urged the EU to reorient relations with

Russia and recognise that the agreement with Ukraine was a mistake. He emphasised the need to

make more diplomatic efforts.

Mr Jean BIZET, French

Sénat,

spoke about the enlargement issues and the Balkan countries, and

their prospects for EU membership. EU needed to ensure that any policy in relations to justice and

financial balance was crucial in terms of their future membership. He also referred to the

Mediterranean, stressing that certain countries must have economic policy, which ensured, that

those countries had a future. With regard to Ukraine, he expressed his satisfaction with the relevant

decision taken by the COSAC.

Mr Marek ZIOLKOWSKI, Polish

Senat,

said that Europe faced two dangers; Russia in the East and

migratory flows in the South. He stressed, that EU must not only defend its borders, but be active in

a positive way in the neighbouring countries. He called for Europe’s actions to be quick and

proactive. Europe might be a giant, but in a foreign policy it was very feeble, slow and inefficient

giant, he said. He also urged to give the countries of western Balkans clear perspective of the EU

membership.

Ms STRIK, Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

expressed concerns about what could arise, when Mare Nostrum

operation would be taken over by the FRONTEX Triton operation. She asked what Italy would

undertake to prevent loss of lives after the Mare Nostrum withdrawal. She also called for

reinforcement of the EUs resettlement policy and urged to make it less permissible.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Mr BLAHA, Slovakian

Narodna rada,

stated that the EU had to respect other cultures, including

orthodox Russia. He stressed that Slovakia did not recognise Crimea’s separation from Ukraine, as

well as Kosovo separation from Serbia. He also expressed Slovakia’s negative position on

sanctions. He pointed out, that Europe needed a stable Russia. He also noted that Ukraine was still

run by oligarchs. Ukraine’s future was federalisation and neutrality. He emphasised the need for

real solutions and improved relations between Russia and Europe.

Mr Christine DEFRAINE, President of the Belgian

Sénat,

stressed the need to encourage the

countries, which chose to have economic and political association with Europe. She added the need

to restore dialogue with Russia by ensuring that EU delivered a constructive message, without

creating new fractions with Russia. With regard to the Mediterranean, she emphasised the need for

strengthened migratory policy.

Mr Victor DOLIDZE,

Parliament of Georgia,

informed, that Georgia was doing well both

regarding NATO and the EU. He informed that Georgia had closed the Visa liberalisation chapter

of the Association agreement, and that it was getting ready for the Riga summit. He added, that

Georgia was doing all to normalise relations with Russia, unfortunately Putin is signing cooperation

agreement with Abkhazia. He also emphasised the need not only to concentrate on sanctions, but to

increase defence capabilities. Russia must know, that strong and democratic Ukraine, Georgia and

Moldova was a guarantee for the regional stability and for Russia’s stability itself.

Mr Mehmet TEKELIOGLU, Turkish

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi,

informed that because, of the

brutality of the Assad regime, there are 1.6 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. With regard to the

Cyprus issue, he noted, that, if there was willingness to use the carbon resources for the benefits of

all Cypriots, Turkey had the best role in sending those recourses to Europe. He also urged that the

dialogue with Moscow must be continued. He stressed the EU’s need to increase cooperation with

Turkey.

Mr Antonio CARDOSO, Portuguese

Assembleia da Republica,

focused on Morocco and Portugal's,

capabilities of producing electricity from renewables, solar and wind energy. He stressed Portugal’s

strategic geopolitical position, which could provide an alternative source of energy for the Europe.

He called, that the EU should fund energy links between Iberian Peninsula and the rest of Europe,

supporting gas and oil pipelines across the peninsula.

Mr Simon SUTOUR, French

Sénat,

called for implementation of the innovative policies with

Morocco. He stressed that the financing of the ENP must be divided as follows: 1/3 to the Eastern

partners and the rest for the Mediterranean countries. The use of those funds should be optimised,

he added. He congratulated the Greek and the Italian Presidencies for striking balance between East

and South, and expressed hope that the Latvian Presidency would do the same and would not

concentrate only on the Eastern Partnership.

Mr Tibor BANA, Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

expressed his doubt as to whether sanctions against

Russia were proper action to solve Ukraine’s crisis: Ukraine, he added, had to make small gestures

for its minorities underlining that the support of the Hungarian minorities was not only a Hungarian

issue, but also European. He stated that a territorial autonomy would be the best solution in that

situation.

Mr Cezary TOMCZYK, Polish

Sejm,

stressed the need for solidarity and integration. He also

emphasised that Russia was not a strategic partner, but a strategic problem.

Mr Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ, Croatian

Hrvatski sabor,

noted that the EU had a great responsibility

towards Southern and Eastern neighbours and that a unitary policy towards non-EU countries was

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

needed. With regard to Eastern Europe, he added that the situation there influenced the whole

continent and Europe had to be brave and active.

Mr NEOFYTOU, Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

focused on the issues of the Mediterranean,

among others on social problems, refugee and asylum seekers problems, and violation of human

rights. He stressed two ways to deal with those: firstly, by letting the people from those countries

understand that the EU was willing to help and, secondly, through the definition of values and

provision of mechanisms to tackle the problems by EU institutions.

Mr Vitalino CANAS, Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

stressed the importance of the Tunisia

as the only positive outcome of the Arab spring.

Ms FOTIOU, Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

informed about Syrian refugees in Greece, emphasising that

is was a problem of the entire Europe and asked when and what measures would be taken, in order

to transfer them to the EU Member States and whether financial support for rescue and search

mechanism would be provided also for Greece and Cyprus as done with the Mare Nostrum plan..

Mr HANNIGAN, Irish

Houses of Oireachtas,

pointed out the enlargement fatigue, which was also

to blame along with some Member States’ attitude towards the rule of law, and stressed the need to

reflect on imbalances and delayed integration due to candidate countries’ failure to reform. He

urged to push for the benefit of further integration. Mr Aykan ERDEMIR, Turkish

Türkiye Büyük

Millet Meclisi,

called for stronger commitment of the EU in the neighbourhood.

Mr Arminas LYDEKA, Lithuanian

Seimas,

stressed the need to talk with one voice, supported by

actions. He denounced the anti-European campaigns orchestrated by Russia during the electoral

campaign in Moldova and the setting up of extremist parties in the EU with the help of Russian

funding. In order to achieve proper peaceful solutions, these had to be supported by the

international community. He expressed his surprise that some countries, e.g. Serbia were willing to

be part of the EU, but were not supporting the common position. He stressed that smooth

integration of Balkan and Eastern partnership countries in the EU would contribute to the peace and

stability of those regions and called for offering membership perspective to those countries, as this

would strengthen the prosperity and security of the EU.

Ms PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ, European Parliament, noted that it was important to remember

that European borders belonged to Europeans and that action at the EU level in terms of security

and migration was necessary. With regard to the borders of the Mediterranean, she stressed the need

for cooperation and development policies to create an area of stability, as well as the need to ensure

a corridor for refugees.

Mr Carmelo MIFSUD BONNICI, Maltese

Il-Kamra Tad-Deputat

stressed the Tunisian example as

an encouraging one.

In response, Ms ČIGĀNE reiterated the need to deal with issues related to the Mediterranean.

Referring to Mr SPINRATH’s intervention, she said that the regional involvement in the ENP was

needed. She acknowledged interventions as to the sanctions having an impact on ordinary people’s

lives, but reminded however the diplomatic truth – it took two to tango. She stressed that Putin did

not want to negotiate with Europe; therefore Europe did not have other means other than sanctions

to use. She also welcomed the comments on further EU enlargement and, concurring with the idea

about enlargement fatigue, agreed that enlargement was not a goal per se, but an instrument towards

stability and peace. She pointed out that the enlargement question was not one for the nearest future,

pointing nevertheless to the need to show those countries, willing to be part of the EU, that the

perspective and the door were open. She noted that those discussions would be continued also in

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Riga, stressing that the more in-depth discussions would be on Eastern partnership, given the

geographic location.

Mr Claudio MARTINI, Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

stressed the political issues, which he

noticed in number of comments, without neglecting the problem of Russia. He believed there was

a need that the central gravity of the Europe must be relocated by paying attention to the southern

border. He stressed the need for a common approach to deal with migration flows in the countries of

origin, which required an enhanced dialogue with those countries. The more we dealt with the

issues at the points of departure, the more benefits we gained. He proposed that after 20 years of

Barcelona process, new paradigms and a decentralised approach had to be found. He noted that he

was positively surprised by the comments on Tunisia, which demonstrated that expansion of

democracy and people’s participation was possible with awareness, unimaginable without EU

support.

Mr Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Vice-President of the European Parliament, stressed the

importance of dealing with the ENP at local and regional level. In relation to the Mediterranean the

EU should show the political will and coherent and effective approach towards Mediterranean. EU

should also use all instruments for ENP and for the pre-accession, to promote democracy. On

immigration, he agreed to tackle the problems at its source, focusing on countries of origin, where

we needed to spread the EU`s values, democracy and good governance and defend the human rights

and fight against human trafficking mafias. He called for greater financial investments in the

Eastern and Southern neighbouring countries. EU enlargement allowed Eastern neighbours to

become closer to the EU and triggered their aspiration to be part of the EU. He stressed, that the

main objective was political and economic cooperation, supporting those countries. On the issue of

the Russian and Ukrainian conflict, he expressed his view, that there was no struggle between the

EU and Russia. He emphasised that Europe’s late reaction was too slow in terms of diplomacy, and

that the EU had to ensure that Putin’s ambitions to recover the empire were not successful.

Mr GOZI, Italian Under-Secretary of State in charge of European Affairs, confirmed that the two

issues discussed are the priorities for the entire Europe. With regard to enlargement, the Italian

Presidency would make sure that the intensity of the dialogue with the candidate countries and other

would not reduce, especially in the Balkan regions. He noted that the situation in the Mediterranean

and the Eastern partnership, as well as relations with Russia were essential. He stressed the need for

solidarity in terms of economic approach. He also urged to have no opposite reactions between

South and East and, on the rule of law, he claimed that Europe was not as demanding towards itself,

as towards its neighbours. He also emphasised the need for success stories. Tunisia today

represented the success story in the north of Africa. On the external borders, he stated, that these

were common borders and, thus had to be dealt with shared responsibility and a sense of solidarity.

7. Democratic control of European agencies

Keynote speakers: Mr Morten KJÆRUM, Director of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and

Coordinator of the European Agency Network for 2014, Sir William CASH, Chair of the European

Scrutiny Committee, UK

House of Commons

In his introductory remarks, the Chair, Mr BORDO, underlined that the highly specialised topic of

the democratic monitoring of agencies was unprecedented for COSAC and that the increasing

number of agencies was one of the most contentious and important developments of the EU. The

goal of the session was to: determine in which limits it was legitimate to delegate wide powers, also

regulatory in nature, to bodies which were not envisaged by the treaties, and also to examine

options to strengthen the link between agencies and national Parliaments; to allow the latter to fully

use agencies' potential for exercising their legislative functions, develop policies and exercise

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

scrutiny; to assess the adequacy of the existing democratic accountability mechanisms and consider

possible improvements.

Mr Morten KJÆRUM, Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA),

stressed that agencies which were set up in order to carry out specific legal, technical or scientific

tasks had an important role in delivering evidence-based advice to help shape informed policies and

laws at the EU and national level. He added that the agencies also enabled economies of scale, and

in many sectors, agencies reduced the overall costs to taxpayers and consumed altogether only 0,6%

of the overall EU budget.

He emphasised that agencies worked for the benefit of the EU citizens in nearly all areas that

impacted their lives.

He welcomed the willingness of national Parliaments to improve relations with agencies and

reassured the audience on the agencies' commitment to enhance the cooperation with national

Parliaments.

He made an in-depth presentation of the accountability mechanisms governing the work of

agencies, focusing on the set up and composition of the governance structure which was agreed by

the Commission, Parliament and the Council in Agency’s founding acts and on the funding of

agencies. He explained that the EU institutions and bodies held the agencies politically, financially

and judicially accountable for their activities. These included the European Commission, Council,

Parliament, as well as the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Auditors, the Internal

Audit Service, the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Ombudsman. He added that

parliamentary oversight over the EU agencies may include questions, inquiries, hearings, budget

discharge, visits and committee contact and stressed the role of the European Parliament's

Constitutional Affairs Committee, Budget Committee and the Budget Control Committee in

regularly assessing the work of agencies, determining each agency’s annual budget, and scrutinising

how each agency have spent the money, before deciding whether the budget can be discharged.

He referred to the ever closer ties forged by many EU agencies to Member States through focal

points in national administrations, national parliaments and corresponding national bodies.

He explained that the European Commission’s roadmap on implementation of the common

approach for EU agencies agreed upon by the Parliament, Commission and Council, led to many

measures to ensure greater coherence in the way they function with a view to improving agencies’

efficiency and accountability. He added that a new inter-institutional working group would look

specifically at decentralised agencies’ resources, to jointly define a clear development path. In

parallel, introducing modern technologies into public administration and effective business tools

was also under consideration.

He concluded by stating that agencies felt accountable also to the EU citizens and that they

remained fully committed to provide their fair share of the measures required to address the difficult

economic situation and assist the EU and its Member States to stimulate growth, create jobs and

build a more inclusive society for Europe. He reiterated the availability of agencies to actively

support the work of national Parliaments and enhance cooperation with them.

In his intervention, Sir William CASH, Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, UK

House of

Commons,

argued that the democratic control of European agencies was seriously deficient which

was symptomatic of the democratic deficit problem of the EU as a whole. In his view, a radical

redesigning of the treaties was necessary to regain trust and to return the fundamental democracy

which resided in the national Parliaments, whilst recognising European Parliamentary involvement.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

He added that there were too many agencies and that some of them had immense influence, even

effective control. In his view, the 2012 common approach to decentralised agencies bypassed

accountability of these agencies by national Parliaments and he stressed the need for improved cost

efficiencies in agency spending.

With respect to the FRA, the UK insisted that the collapse of the EU pillar structure had not

extended the mandate of the agency. He explained that both the Labour Government and the

Conservatives rejected the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but that the European Court of Justice

had ruled that it was applicable to the UK, adding that the European Scrutiny Committee had

proposed that the UK should pass an Act of Parliament excluding that Charter of Fundamental

Rights from its judicial system.

Concerning EUROPOL, the UK House of Commons had insisted that Article 9 of Protocol 1 to the

EU Treaties on the role of national Parliaments demonstrated that it was not for the European

Parliament unilaterally to decide how national Parliaments should ensure political oversight of

EUROPOL. He urged his colleagues to raise the matter of parliamentary scrutiny provisions with

their government ministers, so that Council could adopt a strong position and underlined that any

attempt by the EU institutions to impose a new model of scrutiny on national Parliaments must be

resisted.

He also mentioned that the European Public Prosecutor, which might take over much of the

Eurojust jurisdiction, was confirmed by the Commission despite a clear “yellow card” and added

that, under the current proposal to reform Eurojust, the President of the Eurojust College would

only be required to appear before the European Parliament, not national Parliaments.

In his view, it was disturbing that in their response to the Bi-annual Report of COSAC, the majority

of Parliaments/Chambers stated that they had never addressed the issue of EU agencies, an

omission for which national Parliaments were to blame.

In his opinion, accountability must be demanded, and beyond acknowledging the importance of

control, steps needed to be taken to ensure that agencies were effectively controlled. In this regard,

he referred to an amendment put forward by the UK

House of Commons

and

House of Lords,

well as the Irish Parliament, which stated that it was essential to explore how national Parliaments

should monitor such agencies. Regarding the Troika amendment, which stated that EU agencies

should be encouraged to inform national Parliaments on their activities and work programme, he

argued that information was regarded as a substitute for accountability, whereas accountability

required questions from democratically elected representatives in national Parliaments, and answers

to those questions.

Nine parliamentarians took the floor in the subsequent debate. Most speakers underlined the need

for increased accountability and transparency of agencies and their readiness to be more involved in

this process.

Mr POZZO DI BORGO, French

Assemblée nationale,

stressed that the Fundamental Rights

Agency, which was a concurrent to the Council of Europe, could be useful only if the two structures

held consultations between them. Mr Denis DUCARME, Belgian

Chambre des représentants,

stressed the European Parliament was fulfilling its expected control activities but that these needed

to be re-organised in the future; parliamentary control, the primary mission of the EP, was in his

view necessary and in the case of some agencies there was willingness for national Parliaments to

be associated to the European Parliament control, notably in the field of justice, policing and

immigration; he also called for more proactive approach from national Parliaments’ specialised

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

committees, for increased exchanges of information and transparency which could all contribute to

combatting eurosceptiscism.

Mr Yıldırım Mehet RAMAZANOĞLU, Turkish

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi,

asked for a stronger

role of national Parliaments regarding the democratic control of agencies and extended his country's

support to these activities.

Lord BOSWELL, UK

House of Lords,

stressed the importance of effective scrutiny of all agencies;

regarding Europol, he stated that the Commission proposals for parliamentary scrutiny were very

much what was needed and that the European Parliament’s amendments would raise significant

issues of constitutional principle and might lead to the a supervisory body lacking the necessary

flexibility and responsiveness; in his view work should be pursued on a case-by-case basis to ensure

the right scrutiny mechanisms for each agency at national and EU level.

Mr Svein Roald HANSEN, Norwegian

Stortinget,

asked for the EFTA-EEA members to be

considered as observers in the new parliamentary processes of agencies' scrutiny; referring to

Europol and Eurojust, which were of specific interest for Norway, he added that Norway wished to

be associated in the scrutiny mechanism of Europol once finalised and would continue its work with

the new EP on an amendment allowing its participation.

Mr Yiannos LAMARIS, Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

underlined the importance of agencies and

the need to revise existing mechanisms in light of the difficult economic conditions. He referred to

the absence of an agency working in the field of foreign policy, security and defence and the need

to consider the establishment of such an agency; he also underlined the need to strengthen agencies’

relations with national Parliaments, including via the communication of annual programs and

reports.

Ms HAYDEN, Irish

Dáil Éireann,

mentioned this topic was under discussed and stressed that the

existing mechanisms did not recognise national Parliaments' role in all cases and that the latter's role

in the establishment and oversight of agencies should be further explored. On the establishment of

the EPPO, Ireland believed that the Commission did not adequately consider the option of

strengthening existing or alternative mechanisms.

Mr TRAGAKIS, Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

argued that according to the LII Biannual Report, despite

the growing number of agencies and their perplex mission, more than half of Parliaments had never

carried out an overall consideration of the role, function and accountability mechanism of neither

EU agencies in general nor of a specific agency; he added that national Parliaments had to

contribute in the debate on the role and effectiveness of EU agencies and cited the example of

providing input on the role of EU agencies in the implementation of the European Sea Strategy,

endorsed under the Greek Presidency and continued by the Italian.

Mr Kelvin HOPKINS, UK

House of Commons,

strongly supported Sir CASH's views and stressed

that democracy should be bottom-up, stem from citizens, allow opposing views to be recognised,

while keeping open the possibility of change. Mr Johannes HÜBNER, Austrian

Nationalrat,

agreed

that the tasks assigned by the citizens to the EU could be taken away from it; he argued that 50 per

cent of agencies' activities were unnecessary. On the creation of the FRA, he expressed the view

that initially a Racism Observatory had been set up due to the alleged non observance by Austria of

democratic standards and that it subsequently closed down because it proved to be unnecessary.

In his reply, Sir CASH expressed his satisfaction with the consensus on the need for democratic

control of agencies and called on national Parliaments to take action on this matter. On EUROPOL,

he mentioned there was a constitutional principle involved and welcomed the interest of Norway

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

and Turkey in being engaged in scrutiny. He argued that the lack of reaction the Commission to the

yellow card on the EPPO was an example of democratic deficit being by-passed. He concluded by

adding that there was a serious question mark on the European project and called for the creation of

a stable Europe, with proper principles, democratic accountability and trust.

Mr Morten KJÆRUM ensured he would bring back all comments to his colleagues in the Agencies'

network and acknowledged the urgency to strengthen interaction with national Parliaments. He

highlighted that one of the strengths of agencies was that they were anchored in Member States. He

mentioned that the creation of focal points in national Parliaments could be envisaged by all

agencies, in order to ensure a steady flow of information. He underlined that national members from

the Management Boards of agencies would be available to respond to invitations by national

Parliaments to discuss relevant issues for the parliamentary agenda. He added that building the

necessary trust and knowledge would shatter the perception that agencies were unnecessary and

concluded by reminding the creation of a new interinstitutional group which would take over the

activity of the previous one.

8. Adoption of Contribution and Conclusions of LII COSAC

Mr CHITI, Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

presented the final draft of the Contribution and

Conclusions of the LII COSAC to the meeting. He mentioned the thorough and constructive

discussions of the texts within the Troika and Chairpersons' meetings. He informed that the

Chairpersons had examined all items in the texts with no pre-formed ideas and expressed

satisfaction with the outcome, which was based on common work to find solutions taking into

account all views, an attitude which was essential in interparliamentary cooperation.

Ms ČIGĀNE, Latvian

Saeima,

expressed the hope the Contribution and Conclusions could be

adopted. She welcomed participants to Riga for the upcoming COSAC Chairpersons meeting on 1-

2 February 2015 and the LIII COSAC meeting on 31 May - 2 June 2015. She announced the topics

on the agenda: the priorities of the Latvian Presidency (Engaged Europe, Competitive Europe and

Digital Europe), the European Commission priorities, the Energy Union, TTIP, the future of the

parliamentary scrutiny of the EU affairs and the Eastern partnership. She added that 6 conferences

would be organised in the framework of parliamentary dimension of the Latvian Presidency.

The texts of the Contribution and Conclusions of LII COSAC were adopted, as amended by the

Chairpersons, with no amendment.