EUU, Alm.del - 2011-12 - Bilag 57: Referat af COSAC-møde 2.-4. oktober 2011 i Warszawa

AGENDA:1. Welcome addressesMr Grzegorz SCHETYNA, Marshal of theSejmof the Republic of Poland, andMr Bogdan BORUSEWICZ, Marshal of theSenatof the Republic of Poland.2. Opening of the session:- Adoption of the agenda of the XLVI COSAC- Decisions of the Presidential Troika of COSAC- Presentation of the 16thBi-annual Report of COSAC.3. Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014–2020 from the EU budgetperspectiveKeynote speakers: Mr Janusz LEWANDOWSKI, Commissioner for Budget and FinancialProgramming, and Mr Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO, rapporteur of the European Parliament onthe Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014–2020.4. Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014–2020 from the cohesion policyperspectiveKeynote speaker: Mr Waldemar SŁUGOCKI, Undersecretary of State, Ministry of RegionalDevelopment.5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC:- Appointment of the Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat- Debate on the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVI COSAC.6. State of play of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European UnionKeynote speaker: Mr Mikołaj DOWGIELEWICZ, Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.7. Two years after the entry into force of the Treaty of LisbonKeynote speaker: Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-President of the European Commission for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration.8. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVI COSAC.

Mr Stanisław RAKOCZY also welcomed new members of the Presidential Troika of COSAC(hereinafter referred to as "the Troika") – the delegation from the DanishFolketingand specialguests: Mr Janusz LEWANDOWSKI, Commissioner for Budget and Financial Programming, andMr Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO, rapporteur1of the European Parliament on the MultiannualFinancial Framework for the years 2014-2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the MFF").1.Welcome addressesby Mr Grzegorz SCHETYNA, Marshal of theSejmof the Republic ofPoland, and Mr Bogdan BORUSEWICZ, Marshal of theSenatof the Republic of Poland.Mr Grzegorz SCHETYNA, Marshal of theSejmof the Republic of Poland, welcomed theparticipants of the COSAC in the plenary hall of theSejm.The Marshal admitted that the current crisis situation was difficult, but that the EU shoulddemonstrate its strength and persevere. Mr SCHETYNA stressed the role of trust among nations.He believed that the parliamentary dimension of the Presidency was of particular importance to theEU in order to build such trust. The Marshal stated that COSAC had to prove the importance of thenational Parliaments’ role which had been strengthened by the Treaty of Lisbon. He expressed thehope that economic differences would not overshadow this cooperation.Mr SCHETYNA listed some solutions for emerging from the crisis, including integrated actionstowards sustainable development. He explained that one such action was the adoption of the so-called "six-pack", which is intended to reform economic governance in the EU. The Marshal hopedthat the efficient economic management would enable a faster reaction to unexpected turns inglobal economy and financial markets.The Marshal reminded that the Polish Presidency coincided with the first stage of formalnegotiations on the MFF. According to Mr SCHETYNA, the orientation on the Europe 2020Strategy was also an important aspect of the new EU budget. He added that another crucial part ofthe MFF was cohesion policy.Mr Bogdan BORUSEWICZ, Marshal of theSenatof the Republic of Poland, recalled the role ofCOSAC which developed as a result of a bottom-up initiative ten years after the first directelections to the European Parliament. The Marshal noted that the latest term of office of the PolishSejmand theSenatcoincided with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon. He admitted that onecould not yet determine whether this Treaty had saved the EU, but it was for the best that the lateststage of the EU institutional reforms ended before the financial crisis. Nevertheless, the Marshalunderscored that integration within the EU should go deeper.According to Mr BORUSEWICZ, the protection of the euro and the enforcement of a fullyfunctional single market were intertwined. The future of Europe required the deepening of theEuropean integration, as no single country would be able to emerge from the crisis alone. TheMarshal concluded that both politicians and citizens realized that a common action was required toovercome the crisis.

2. Opening of the session2.1 Adoption of the agenda of the XLVI COSAC meetingMr Stanisław RAKOCZY informed the participants that the draft agenda of the XLVI COSACmeeting consisted of the following points:-Opening session, including the presentation of the 16thBi-annual Report of COSAC,-The MFF from the EU budget perspective,-The MFF from the cohesion policy perspective,-State of play of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union,-Two years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - parliamentary experience,-Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVI COSAC.In the absence of any proposals for modification, Mr RAKOCZY concluded that the agenda of theXLVI COSAC meeting was adopted.2.2 Decisions of the Presidential Troika of COSACMr Stanisław RAKOCZY informed the participants on the decisions of the Troika which met theprevious day.The Troika had approved the draft programme of the XLVI COSAC meeting, had discussed the16thBi-annual Report of COSAC and had interviewed two candidates for the post of thePermanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat.The Troika had not reached a consensus on the selection of a candidate for the post and haddecided to ask the Chairpersons to make the decision by voting. The first vote would decidewhether they would choose the next Permanent Member by voting that day. If so, the second votewould be on the appointment itself. In case of a negative outcome of the first vote, the nominationwould be postponed until the Danish Presidency of COSAC in the first half of 2012. MrRAKOCZY added that the term of the current Permanent Member, Ms Loreta RAULINAITYTĖ,would expire at the end of 2011 and that the COSAC Rules of Procedure did not allow extendingit.2.3 Presentation of the 16thBi-annual Report of COSACMr Stanisław RAKOCZY thanked national Parliaments and the European Parliament for theirreplies to the questionnaire for the 16thBi-annual Report of COSAC. The Chairman admitted thatdue to summer recess the time for the replies had been short and that the questionnaire had beencomprehensive. He thanked the COSAC Secretariat and its Permanent Member Ms LoretaRAULINAITYTĖ for their work on the Report.Mr Edmund WITTBRODT then briefly presented both chapters of the Report. Chapter 1 focusedon the MFF for Europe 2020, while Chapter 2 dealt with the experience of national Parliamentsand the European Parliament two years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. MrWITTBRODT also thanked the COSAC Secretariat for their excellent work on the Report.

Following the presentation of the Report by Mr WITTBRODT four participants took the floor.They stressed the importance of stronger interparliamentary cooperation in the EU, underscoringthe value of COSAC meetings, especially in times of increased euroscepticism. The participantsexpressed the hope that closer cooperation between the EU institutions and national Parliamentswould allow to avoid national rhetoric and to reinforce solidarity in the EU.3. Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014–2020 from the EU budgetperspectiveKeynote speakers: Mr Janusz LEWANDOWSKI, Commissioner for Budget and FinancialProgramming, and Mr Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO, rapporteur of the European Parliament onthe MFF.In his address, Mr Janusz LEWANDOWSKI, Commissioner for Budget and FinancialProgramming presented the main features of the Communication of the European Commission(hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") "A Budget for Europe 2020"2published on 29 June2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Proposal on the MFF") and noted that it came amid specificeconomic conditions, when Europe was fighting the crisis.The Commissioner pointed out that due to the present economic circumstances the core message ofthe MFF was based on the attitude of "more Europe and European policy for the same money". Itreflected new responsibilities and policy areas of the EU enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon. Thus,the MFF must fill the gaps between Member States by financing a number of initiatives e.g.broadband internet, tackling immigration and energy issues.Nevertheless, the Commissioner warned that the EU must not repeat old mistakes and recalled theelaboration of the previous MFF. That proposal had been rejected by the Council, which putforward a completely different proposal. Against this backdrop, he stressed the need to be bothambitious and realistic while elaborating the MFF. This entailed no increase of the EU budgetexceeding the 2013 level including inflation, as the amount of public money should fall from 2.3% now to 2.0 % in 2020. Although the Commission was convinced that the crisis would not lastuntil 2020, and the MFF was a long-term perspective. It therefore hoped that Member Statesaffected by austerity measures would not reject the Proposal on the MFF.The main areas of expenses of the MFF were the common agricultural policy (hereinafter referredto as "the CAP") and cohesion policy. The former had accounted for up to 70 % of the EU budgetin the 1980s, compared to approximately 40 % nowadays. The European Commission proposed anominal freeze of the CAP which would in turn translate into around 33 % of budget expenditurein 2020. Another important characteristic of the CAP in the future MFF was a "modestconvergence" of direct payments. Thus, payments in such countries as the Netherlands andBelgium and many other from the so-called "old Europe" would decrease by 7 %, which accordingto Mr LEWANDOWSKI "should not be politically painful", especially taking into account apossibility of maintaining the level of direct payments by shifting resources from the "secondpillar" of the CAP i.e. rural development policy to the "first pillar" i.e. direct payments. On theother hand, convergence would mean an increase of the direct payments in the Member Stateswhere they are now below the average. The Commissioner stated that the level of direct paymentsin the Netherlands amounted to 470 euro per hectare as compared to approximately 100 euro perhectare in Lithuania, and below 100 euro per hectare in Latvia. Thus the Member States with a low2

level of direct payments should see them grow by approximately 30-60 %. The Commissionerstressed that convergence aimed at filling the gap between the Member States was feasible, but hedid not envisage flat rates of direct payments in the future owing to differences across the EU.With regard to cohesion policy, the Commission also proposed a nominal freeze of its budget,without taking into account the inflation, with minor shifts from "rich" to less affluent countries.At present, the ratio of cohesion funds allocated to "old" and "new" Member States wasapproximately 50-50, while under the new MFF "new" Member States would receive 57-58 %,while the "old" ones 42-43 %. The Commissioner also stressed the importance of cohesion policyfor Eastern Germany, Spain and Portugal, as well as such regions as Wales or eastern Finland.The Commission also proposed a creation of the new Connecting Europe Facility, created tofinance large European projects aimed at filling gaps between the Member States by fundingenergy, transport and internet infrastructure. Commissioner LEWANDOWSKI indicated that theEuropean Investment Bank had accumulated some experience in the use of public resources aswell as in making them more attractive to private capital. In this context, he stressed the need touse financial leverage and mentioned 50 billion euro worth Eurobonds to be used in future.The Commissioner also drew attention to the growing external responsibility of the EU in view ofrecent developments for instance in the Arab world, which resulted in an increasing number ofrefugees and a need for an appropriate funding. Mr LEWANDOWSKI underlined, however, thatthis could not happen at the expense of the Eastern Partnership.As regards the revenue part of EU budget, the Commissioner said that it should always bebalanced, and added that apart from the contributions of Member States, the EU should develop asystem of genuine own resources. In this context, the Commission proposed a number of measuressuch as introducing a financial transaction tax (hereinafter referred to as "the FTT") or a reform ofthe VAT system. The Commissioner underlined that the FTT had been mentioned in the resolutionof the European Parliament on the MFF, and in the Conclusions of the European Council3of 24and 25 March 2011. Mr LEWANDOWSKI was of the opinion that the FTT should be introducedon a global scale. Concerning the VAT, he stated that the reform should consist of transferringpart of the tax to the EU budget. He stressed in this context that there should be no taxationwithout representation, and that the decision on the introduction of the FTT should be adoptedunanimously and ratified by all national Parliaments in order to ensure the fiscal sovereignty of theMember States.In order to strengthen fiscal consolidation, the Commissioner suggested replacing the system ofcorrections with a system of lump-sum payments with regard to such Member States as the UK,Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands.Mr Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO, the European Parliament rapporteur on the new MFF,emphasized that the work of the SURE Committee4, of which European Parliament delegationmember Ms Jutta HAUG had been the Chairwoman, had been based on the principle of consensusand included replies from a number of national Parliaments/Chambers to the SURE Committeequestionnaire.

Mr GARRIGA POLLEDO underlined that it was the first time that the European Parliamentelaborated its Proposal on the MFF, and that the fundamental idea behind the work of the SURECommittee was not to repeat past mistakes and to avoid bad planning in future. He added that theresolution winding up the work of the special Committee had been adopted with a large majorityof more than 60 % of the votes of the Members of the European Parliament.The rapporteur also underscored the importance of the dialogue on the MFF between the EuropeanParliament, national Parliaments and the Commission, welcoming the idea of the Conference onthe MFF on 20 - 21 October 2011 in Brussels.Mr GARRIGA POLLEDO positively evaluated the Proposal on the MFF, supporting,inter alia,the Connecting Europe Facility which was to build communication networks between MemberStates and thus rectify the injustices of the history. He added that the MFF should be a basis forfuture growth.He went on to say that the European Parliament had suggested that the EU budget should beincreased by 5 % taking into account new investment objectives. Moreover, he underscored thatthe Proposal on the MFF foresaw limited financing for some policy areas, such as the CAP, whichmight adversely affect them. Mr GARRIGA POLLEDO warned that the European Council waslikely to reduce the amount of the financing which might result in an insufficient EU budget.As regards the revenue side of the EU budget, Mr GARRIGA POLLEDO underscored that the EUshould have its financial autonomy and underlined the need to introduce changes for netcontributors. He also expressed support of the European Parliament for the FTT.He underlined the active role of the European Parliament on the MFF and added that an agreementshould be reached during the Danish and Cypriot Presidencies. Mr GARRIGA POLLEDOexpressed the hope that by 2013 the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council wouldhave reached an agreement on the MFF that would serve as a basis for growth in the period 2014-2020.During the ensuing debate 31 speakers took the floor. Many brought up the question of a moreequitable CAP, with members from,inter alia,the Baltic States stressing that it should remain acommon priority for the whole EU. Concerning cohesion, many speakers believed that its fundingshould remain at an appropriate level.Some speakers voiced concerns that the FTT might jeopardize the competitiveness of the EU at theglobal level, while those supporting the FTT stressed that it should be a pan-European measure andits introduction should be preceded by an impact assessment, as it might have a bearing on theeconomic well-being of EU citizens.Many speakers stressed that austerity measures should not have a negative impact on the financingof the new competences laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. A few speakers suggested decreasingthe EU budget in view of the financial crisis, while others argued that national Parliaments shoulddefend the MFF, as it was impossible to decrease the budget further. Some speakers were of theopinion that, while being relatively small in size, the EU budget should focus on priorities withhigher added value for European economies such as innovations or life-long learning. It wassuggested that decisions should be taken more swiftly as the EU was losing because the decision-making process was too lengthy. According to some speakers small and medium enterprises, beingthe basis of the EU economies, should be protected from overregulation.

In his reply, Commissioner LEWANDOWSKI reiterated that the Proposal on the MFF was a solidbasis for further discussions, but he did not exclude its revision. On concerns regarding the overalllevel of expenditure, the Commissioner stressed that the budget of the EU in 2000-2010 rose onlyby 37.5 % despite the enlargement of the EU, while the budgets of the Member States rose onaverage by 62 %. Thus, the EU budget as compared to national spending had a clear tendency todecrease, despite the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon introduced new obligations at the EU level.The Commissioner stressed that the EU had the tools and means to create jobs and growth as theinvested money amounted to 80 % of the EU budget as compared to 6 % in budgets of MemberStates. With regard to the quality of spending the Commissioner underlined that approximately 80% of the EU budget was spent under the responsibility of Member States. On the structure of theEU budget, the Commissioner informed that resources for the CAP and cohesion had been frozento enable the financing of,inter alia,research and development mobility and the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy.Referring to the CAP, the Commissioner reiterated that the level of direct payments e.g. inLithuania or Latvia should rise by approximately 30 %, while the differences in Spain or Irelandwould hardly be perceptible. In case of France it should amount to 2 %, which could be easilycompensated with resources shifted from the "second pillar" of the CAP. He went on to say thateach Member State decided how to divide the money received under the CAP between directpayments and rural development. For instance, in Poland this proportion was fifty-fifty, while inFrance the 90 % of the funds was allocated to direct payments.Mr LEWANDOWSKI noted mixed reactions on the proposal to introduce the FTT. He went on tosay that the FTT would cover bonds but not cash transactions, and could contribute to theconsolidation of public finances in Europe, especially if introduced on a global scale. He addedthat it was better to tax financial transactions rather than labour, or to raise the VAT.Referring to the fear of overregulation, the Commissioner stated that "more Europe" was needed toovercome the crisis in the eurozone. Thus, the EU had to impose discipline by introducing the "six-pack" and other measures. The EU should not be too invasive and overload entrepreneurs withunnecessary regulations, while ensuring the respect to the principle of subsidiarity.Mr Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO recalled the overall support of the European Parliament forthe MFF, although he repeated that the funding foreseen for the CAP seemed to be insufficient. Headded that the success of the MFF depended largely also on national Parliaments controlling theirGovernments. Mr GARRIGA POLLEDO stated that the European Parliament wished to strengthenthe MFF in its EU dimension as centrally allocated resources for education, research or transportwould create more added value.4. Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014-2020 from the cohesion policyperspectiveKeynote speaker: Mr Waldemar SŁUGOCKI, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of RegionalDevelopmentMr Waldemar SŁUGOCKI started his speech by noting that in the current period of crisis cohesionpolicy was of special importance and that national Parliaments played a significant part in thedetermination of future cohesion policy. He then described cohesion policy as a modern, result

oriented policy, which could however be better coordinated, more effective, efficient and morevisible to citizens. Furthermore, Mr SŁUGOCKI stressed that cohesion policy after 2013 was toimplement the goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy.Mr SŁUGOCKI explained that the Proposal on the MFF had allocated 33 % of the EU budget tocohesion policy for 2014-2020. This was a decrease of 5 % as compared to the MFF for 2007-2013. Of the resources provided for cohesion policy 48 % were to be earmarked for convergenceand 25 % for competitiveness and inter-region development. Mr SŁUGOCKI referred to the factthat Member States already had formed a critical opinion regarding the Commission's idea for afuture cohesion policy and asked that the Commission would take the arguments of the MemberStates into consideration and reconcile the goal of cohesion policy with more flexibility.The Undersecretary of State argued that as the Commission had centrally earmarked money fromthe Cohesion Fund to other projects, for instance 10 billion euro to infrastructural projects, theCohesion Fund might lose some of its integrity. Mr SŁUGOCKI said that the first negativereactions of the Member States had indicated that the connection of EU instruments would be asensitive point and that Member States had voiced their concerns about the socio-economicdevelopment of European regions if money from the social funds were to be diverted to otherprograms.However, Mr SŁUGOCKI hoped that on the basis of the strategic framework Member Stateswould help secure the complementarity between the CAP and cohesion policy.Ms Danuta HÜBNER, Chairwoman of the European Parliament Committee for RegionalDevelopment and former Commissioner for Regional Policy, shared her views on regional policyfor 2014-2020. She stressed that Europe needed growth and that all policies had to focus on theconditions for growth. Ms HÜBNER went on to say that the main objective of the MFF was tomodernise EU policies and create opportunities for investments to reach poorer regions.Ms HÜBNER explained that the EU budget should focus on those policies that could facilitatedevelopment and help implement the common European goals. She underlined that the StructuralFunds were not to finance random projects, but should be utilised for carefully prepared projects.Ms HÜBNER specified that a good balance between cuts and indispensable policies should bereached.During the ensuing debate another 27 speakers took the floor. The vast majority supportedcohesion policy as an important tool for building a common Europe. However, several speakersexpressed concern about the risk of growing disparity between Member States if the MFF did notinclude cohesion policy as one of the main policies to be financed by the EU budget. Moreover, afew speakers feared that some Member States would not be able to recover from the economiccrisis if the Cohesion Funds were to be cut. The Proposal on the MFF was nevertheless generallyconsidered as a good basis for negotiations. A couple of speakers suggested that cohesion policywould be more effective if the number of policy priorities would be limited. There was,furthermore, overall support for investing in making Europe better connected, as infrastructureprojects were considered to be important for economic success. However, a few speakers addedthat this should not be at the expense of cohesion policy. Several speakers noted that a moreharmonised single market could be brought about through the reduction of social inequality, whileothers pointed out that the Commission's proposal to transfer funds from cohesion policy or fromthe CAP was not an option.

Mr SŁUGOCKI summarised the discussion by saying that cohesion policy was to determine thefuture of the EU.Hereafter the head of the delegation of the DanishFolketing,Ms Eva KJER HANSEN, asked forthe floor and announced that the XLVII COSAC meeting would be held in Copenhagen on 22-24April 2012, preceded by the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC on 29-30 January 2012.5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSACThe meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC consisted of the following two parts:1. Nomination of the Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat,2. Debate on the draft Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVI COSAC.On the nomination of the new Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat for the term of office2012-2013, Mr Stanisław RAKOCZY informed the Chairpersons that the Troika had interviewedboth candidates for the post, i.e. Ms Libby KURIEN nominated by the UKHouse of CommonsandMs Magdalena SKRZYŃSKA nominated by theSejmof the Republic of Poland. To ensuretransparency of the process Mr William CASH, the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committeeof the UKHouse of Commons,had been invited and had attended the meeting of the Troika as anobserver. The candidates had been interviewed separatelyin camerafor about 20 minutes each,including five-minute presentations by the candidates on their motivation and plans in case theywere chosen. Due to the fact that one of the candidates had been nominated by the PolishPresidency, both Mr Edmund WITTBRODT and Mr RAKOCZY had abstained from posingquestions to the candidates, but had chaired both the interviews and the part of the meeting whereMembers of Parliament only discussed the outcome of the interviews in order to identify the mostsuitable candidate. Mr William CASH, as an observer, had also attended both the interviews andthe decision-making part of the meeting.Mr RAKOCZY announced to the Chairpersons of COSAC that the Troika had been unable toreach an agreement on the most suitable candidate, but had agreed on a proposal on how toproceed. Consequently, Mr RAKOCZY suggested voting in the Chairpersons’ meeting, first, onwhether the appointment of the new Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat should takeplace at this meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC or should be postponed until the DanishPresidency in the first half of 2012 (a procedural vote). If the decision was postponed, a new callfor candidates would be announced, while the nomination of the present candidates would remainvalid, if the Chambers in question agreed to maintain their candidates. However, if the decisionwas to be taken at the XLVI COSAC in Warsaw, a secret vote would be held on the most suitablecandidate following a five-minute presentation by each candidate with no possibility to ask thecandidates any questions (a substantive vote).

Several delegations expressed doubts on whether such a vote could take place at the meeting of theChairpersons of COSAC as they had had no opportunity to get to know the candidates sufficientlywell.After a short debate, the first procedural vote took place. Each Chamber of a bicameral Parliamentwas assigned one vote and each unicameral Parliament was assigned two votes. The result of thevote was: 38 in favour, 8 against with 3 abstentions.Following the decision to take the second (substantive) vote the same day, Ms Libby KURIEN andMs Magdalena SKRZYŃSKA (in alphabetical order) made a five-minute presentation each.Following the presentations, Mr RAKOCZY informed the Chairpersons that the decision on thecandidates would be taken by simple majority without counting abstentions. The secret voteresulted in 37 votes for Ms Libby KURIEN and 17 votes for Ms Magdalena SKRZYŃSKA. As aresult, the Chairpersons appointed Ms Libby KURIEN as the next Permanent Member of theCOSAC Secretariat for a two-year term starting on 1 January 2012.The second part of the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC was dedicated to the debate on thedraft Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVI COSAC.On 12 September 2011, three weeks before the XLVI COSAC meeting, the Polish Presidency ofCOSAC had submitted to the COSAC delegations the first draft of the Contribution andConclusions of the XLVI COSAC meeting, inviting them to table amendments to both documentsuntil 23 September 2011.The Presidency informed the Chairpersons that it had received 28 amendments from nationalParliaments and the European Parliament and had grouped them in a table made available inEnglish and French. An extensive debate on all amendments took place and an amended text of theContribution and Conclusions of the XLVI COSAC was agreed.6. State of play of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European UnionKeynote speaker: Mr Mikołaj DOWGIELEWICZ, Secretary of State for European Affairs,Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of PolandSecretary of State for European Affairs Mr Mikołaj DOWGIELEWICZ started by conveyingapologies on behalf of the Polish Prime Minister Mr Donald TUSK for not being able toparticipate in the meeting as was originally planned because of other urgent commitments that day.Mr DOWGIELEWICZ noted that this was a difficult time to hold the Presidency of the Council ofthe EU, as trust itself was being questioned in terms of EU economic development, in particularthe functioning of the common currency, in terms of trust of citizens and financial markets in EUinstitutions as well as among Member States. Therefore, the unofficial goal of the PolishPresidency was to restore confidence, primarily by tackling the challenges of unemployment andeconomic growth. The European Council meeting later in October 2011 would therefore serve as atest for agreeing on both the external aspects of the EU economic policy and on orientations onother aspects of economic policy, especially as regards growth enhancing areas. The aim was topresent an institutional and economic strategy which was credible to citizens and markets.

The Secretary of State took the opportunity to highlight some of the achievements of the PolishPresidency, including the compromise on the "six-pack" in the European Parliament and thepresentation of a Presidency Report ‘Towards a European consensus on growth’ pertaining tosources of economic growth in Europe. The report would attempt to address two issues of keysignificance to the EU, namely, initiatives on growth and the need to reconcile development-stimulating investment with the necessity to maintain balanced public finances. In the Presidency’sview, the potential was to fully exploit the human capital, the internal market, e-economy, thesmall and medium-sized enterprises, regional policy and the ‘green economy’. Furthermore, thereport would present specific recommended actions in defining new sources of economic growth inEurope.Another important development was the Proposal on the MFF. Mr DOWGIELEWICZ recalledthat a similar proposal in 2004 (i.e. the MFF for 2007-2013) had been rejected by the Council. Incontrast, both the EU institutions and national Parliaments had now been working on the initialproposal of the Commission of 29 June 2011. The Polish Presidency would like to steer the initialdebates on the next MFF by actively involving national Parliaments. In this context, MrDOWGIELEWICZ mentioned the Presidency’s initiative to hold a conference on the MFF co-organised by the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament on 20-21 October 2011 inBrussels. National Parliaments had been invited to take an active part in this conference whichwould open a broad-ranging debate.In the context of the debates within the Council, Mr DOWGIELEWICZ also drew the attention ofCOSAC to such complex issues as the future of the Schengen area, the progress in the EUenlargement process and the European Neighbourhood Policy, including the Eastern Partnership.With regard to the debates on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area, MrDOWGIELEWICZ emphasized that it was the lack of trust among Member States that had led tothe difficult situation and to two Member States' vetoes. As a result, the debate on the future of theSchengen system became a serious challenge for the Polish Presidency.Nevertheless, the Secretary of State noted with satisfaction that the EU had managed to maintainthe open-door approach in the context of its enlargement policy and that in mid-December 2011 itwould be able to sign the treaty of accession with Croatia. Mr DOWGIELEWICZ also expressedoptimism with regard to the accession negotiations with Iceland and developments in Montenegro.On the other hand, the issue of granting the status of candidate country to Serbia was a "bigquestion mark" primarily because of both the lack of progress in internal reforms and in Serbia’srelations with Kosovo.In the context of the openness of the EU, Mr DOWGIELEWICZ also made reference to anotherpriority of the Polish Presidency, i.e. the European Neighbourhood Policy, including the responseof the EU to recent events in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Bearing in mind that the competence in thearea of EU external relations is primarily exercised by the EU High Representative CatherineASHTON, the Polish Presidency had tried to support her in promoting the important agenda ofdemocratisation and modernisation of this region in the EU neighbourhood. Another importantaspect of the European Neighbourhood Policy for the Polish Presidency was the EasternPartnership, a successful summit on which had taken place on 29-30 September 2011 in Warsaw.In this context, the Secretary of State highlighted the importance of fostering relations with the sixEastern neighbours of the EU and of increasing economic openness of all parties concerned. MrDOWGIELEWICZ stressed the importance of negotiations on the Deep and Comprehensive FreeTrade Agreements which opened up closer trade relations and a higher level of mobility,particularly for certain categories of workers.

Following his presentation, 22 Members of national Parliaments and the European Parliament tookthe floor. They welcomed the efforts of the Polish Presidency in promoting economic prosperityand financial stability of the EU, stressing the need to rebuild confidence and to foster solidarity inEurope. The questions and comments of the Members of Parliament covered a wide-range ofissues, including the role of national Parliaments in the negotiations on the MFF, the future of theeurozone and the Schengen area, the future of cohesion policy and the CAP, EU relations withNATO and Russia.A number of participants spoke on the EU enlargement process. They were concerned about theway the preoccupation of the EU with the crises could affect the enlargement process and aboutthe future relations of the EU with the FYROM, including the associated name issue. The Turkishdelegation expressed disappointment at the slow pace of negotiations and called for a clear signalon the part of the EU, so that the momentum would be maintained. The participants alsounderscored that the Eastern Partnership should not be sidelined either, notably that the Moldova'sTransnistria problem should continuously remain on the EU agenda and that the Lukashenkoregime in Belarus should not be tolerated. In this context, the Lithuanian delegation indicated thatthe Eastern Partnership would be one of the priorities of the Lithuanian Presidency in the secondhalf of 2013.In his reply, Mr DOWGIELEWICZ stressed that the debate on the MFF and the EU own resourceshad just started and would continue throughout 2012. The State Secretary also underlined thatcurrent economic and financial crises did not concern individual Member States. Due to theintertwined economies all of them were affected, including those who had decided not to join theeurozone. In his opinion, the EU needed to vigorously introduce the principle of responsibility,also in the framework of the European semester, and to take firm action to reduce debt.On enlargement, Mr DOWGIELEWICZ noted that Turkey had not lived up to some of itscommitments and that the country needed to prove that on its part there had been "a clear sense ofdirection". As to the FYROM, the Secretary of State indicated that it had been difficult topositively assess progress and the country was gradually losing momentum and that the name issuewas not the only stumbling block. There were other problems,inter alia,related to the freedom ofpress. Overall, Mr DOWGIELEWICZ underlined that 95 % of the efforts in the process had to beundertaken by the candidate countries themselves.7. Two years after the entry into force of the Treaty of LisbonKeynote speaker: Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-President of the Commission for Inter-InstitutionalRelations and AdministrationAt the beginning of his speech, entitled "National Parliaments: Key Partners in Setting the EUAgenda", Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ referred to the State of the Union speech of the President of theCommission Mr José Manuel BARROSO the previous week during the plenary session of theEuropean Parliament in Strasbourg. The Vice-President emphasized that despite the crisis, whichwas a major challenge to the EU, Europe had much to be proud of, as the crisis did "not meanchaos or disaster", but was "an opportunity to make necessary changes".The Vice-President then spoke about relations between the Commission and national Parliaments.He noted that the number of reasoned opinions and contributions the Commission received fromnational Parliaments had risen constantly over time. In 2011 alone the Commission received 418

opinions from national Parliaments, which was a positive development. Furthermore, a new ITsystem, called "ASAP", had been developed in the Commission to deal with the opinions ofnational Parliaments.However, with regard to the findings of the 16thBi-annual Report of COSAC, the Commissioneradmitted that sometimes delays occurred in replying to national Parliaments (he gave the exampleof the proposal on the CCCTB, where the Commission was already late with its replies to thereasoned opinions), or the replies were not exhaustive or fully satisfactory. He confirmed, though,that the Commission was committed to improve both the speed and the level of detail of its replies.Mr ŠEFČOVIČ underlined that there could be situations where a written reply could not be asexplicit and definitive as one would wish, for instance because of sensitive interinstitutionalnegotiations or because it was too early for the Commission to take a position. Therefore, heemphasized that the "political dialogue could and should go well beyond a written exchange ofviews". In this context, he referred to the replies of national Parliaments to the questionnaire forthe 16thBi-annual Report, indicating that they had not continued the political dialogue with theCommission after receiving its initial reply. The Vice-President hoped that this would change infuture in order "to clarify misunderstandings, to get an accurate picture and a better understandingof each others' positions and reasoning".The Vice-President referred to the doubts expressed by some national Parliaments aboutprocedural issues concerning delegated acts. According to the Commission, however, "there weresufficient safeguards", as the decision on the delegation to the Commission was in the hands of thelegislator (Council - therefore Member States - and the European Parliament), "who could alsorevoke a delegation or object to any act". In this context, Mr ŠEFČOVIČ assured the participantsof the debate that the Commission was "always ready to listen to any comment and engage indiscussions about what was to be considered an essential element of a legal proposal".The Vice-President then turned to the issue of the crisis and Europe's economic situation,emphasising the high level of interdependence between Member States and the implications of thisinterdependence. He underlined that considering Europe's prominence in the global economy, "thestakes were high", in efforts to avoid global recession. In the opinion of Mr ŠEFČOVIČ, thischallenge was "an economic challenge for families, businesses and communities across Europe.But it was also a political challenge, a fight for tolerance and reason in social and internationalrelationships, a fight for European integration itself". Therefore, the focus for the immediate futureshould be on: (i) "restoring confidence in Europe", (ii) "rebuilding stability and discipline", (iii)"making solidarity real", and (iv) "delivering growth and jobs". He referred to the problems ofstructural deficiencies and long-term competitiveness, emphasizing the danger of the accumulationof debts and excessive deficits. These should be corrected "in a determined and sustainable way",by carrying out "long-overdue structural reforms", even in cases where political courage wasneeded "to drive change forward". He underlined that national Parliaments played a key role in thisprocess, by "holding governments to account", by "driving national reform programmes, forrebalancing public finances and for reaching rapid agreement on the most urgent matters". MrŠEFČOVIČ reiterated that "delay in delivery had been at the heart of the current uncertainty infinancial markets".According to the Commission, the following tasks were the most urgent:1. To implement the package agreed on 21 July 2011 by all eurozone Heads of State andGovernment, including measures to increase the flexibility and effectiveness of theEuropean Financial Stability Facility,2. To implement the "six-pack" on reinforced economic governance,

In this context, Mr ŠEFČOVIČ underlined the need for continuous dialogue, cooperation and"challenging each other through common EU institutions, not in a retreat into fragmentation andintergovernmentalism".Finally, the Vice-President reiterated the commitment on the part of the Commission to foster thecooperation with national Parliaments, underlining that the Commission was keen on hearing theviews on national Parliaments, including in the framework of COSAC. He finished his speech byconcluding that two years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon national Parliamentswere undoubtedly "at the heart of European politics, and that Europe was on the top of nationalpolitical agendas".Following the speech of the Vice-President, 20 Members of national Parliaments and the EuropeanParliament took the floor. They touched upon various issues, in general giving a positive feedbackon the work of the Commission and its cooperation with national Parliaments. Many underlinedthe seriousness of the situation in Europe, as the crisis brought about not only financial problemsbut also revealed structural deficiencies in Member States. Therefore, the speakers considered thata closer involvement of national Parliaments in the efforts to overcome the consequences of thecrisis would be beneficial.The participants of the debate also shared their two-year experience in applying provisions of theTreaty of Lisbon, in particular on ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is respected, onpromoting interparliamentary cooperation and on a possible future revision of the Treaties. Anumber of speakers commented on the political dialogue with the Commission, by both expressingtheir support to the initiative and by voicing concerns about the content and timeliness of theCommission’s replies to national Parliaments' opinions. The debate saw a number of interesting,specific ideas on ways for national Parliaments and the European Parliament to interact, forinstance to "revive" the European Convention to further improve the Treaties, to reduce thenumber of interparliamentary meetings, but to improve their coordination and attendance, toactively cooperate with the committees of the European Parliament asking them to alert nationalParliaments on important, controversial delegated acts or to create a system of interaction betweennational Parliaments and the European Parliament regarding subsidiarity and proportionalityaspects of delegated legislation.In addition, the speakers raised such issues as interparliamentary debates on CFSP, includingCSDP, on energy security, the future of Europol and Eurojust, fight against corruption (also in thecontext of Article 86 of TFEU), the implementation of the Stockholm Programme and so on.

In his replies, Mr ŠEFČOVIČ reiterated the Commission's intention to foster the political dialogueand to improve its replies to reasoned opinions and contributions of national Parliaments. TheVice-President also shared some of the Commission’s ideas on how to tackle the crisis,underlining, however, that the commitment of the Member States was equally essential. Hestressed the need for a more effective cooperation between the EU institutions and a bettercommunication with the citizens, with active involvement of national Parliaments in both. Inaddition, he answered the questions on such issues as energy security and the forthcomingCommission’s proposals on Europol and Eurojust.8. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVI COSACThis point of the agenda started with sincere thanks of the Polish Presidency and the plenary ofCOSAC to Ms Loreta RAULINAITYTĖ, the current Permanent Member of the COSACSecretariat, seconded to the post by theSeimasof the Republic of Lithuania, for her four years ofintensive and dedicated work for COSAC. The Polish Presidency noted that the second term ofoffice of Ms Loreta RAULINAITYTĖ would expire at the end of 2011 and that a new PermanentMember of the COSAC Secretariat for 2012-2013 - Ms Libby KURIEN from the UKHouse ofCommons- had been appointed by the Chairpersons of COSAC the previous day.The XLVI COSAC voted on the text of the draft Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVICOSAC as amended by the Chairpersons of COSAC according to Article 7.5 of the Rules ofProcedure of COSAC. The Contribution was adopted by 42 votes in favour, 1 vote against (theItalianCamera dei Deputati)and 5 abstentions (the European Parliament (2 votes), thePortugueseAssambleia da Republica(2 votes) and the ItalianSenato della Repubblica(1 vote)).The COSAC Conclusions were adopted by 44 votes in favour, no votes against and no abstentions.Once translated into all official languages of the EU, the Contribution of the XLVI COSAC will bepublished in the Official Journal of the EU.