EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

Europaudvalget 2015-16
EUU Alm.del Bilag 374
Offentligt

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CHAIRPERSONS OF COSAC

The Hague, the Netherlands, 8 February 2016

AGENDA:

1. Opening of the meeting

Welcome address by Ms Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL, President of the Dutch

Eerste Kamer

Introductory remarks by Mr Malik AZMANI, Chair of the Committee on

European Affairs of the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

2. Adoption of the agenda of the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

3. Organisation and co-operation of parliamentary scrutiny on the basis of a case

study focussing on EUROPOL

Key question: How do parliaments scrutinise documents and decisions in

practice? How do European Affairs committees and standing committees

exchange and cooperate? How are contacts with the European Parliament

organised? - Introduction by moderator: Mr Tom DE BRUIJN, former

Ambassador of the Netherlands to the European Union from 2003 to 2011 and

contribution by Ms Danielle AUROI, Chair of the EU Affairs Committee,

French

Assemblée nationale

and Mr Veli YÜKSEL, Belgian

Chambre des

représentants

4. Procedural issues and miscellaneous matters

Briefing on the results of the Presidential Troika of COSAC

Draft agenda of the LV COSAC

Outline of the 25th Bi-Annual Report of COSAC

Letters received by the Presidency

5. European priorities for 2016 and beyond

Key focus of the 2016 European Commission work programme

–

speaker Ms

Kristalina GEORGIEVA, European Commission Vice-President for Budget and

Human Resources

The Dutch 2016 EU Presidency

–

speaker Mr Bert KOENDERS, Minister of

Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands

PROCEEDINGS

IN THE CHAIR: Mr Malik AZMANI, Chair of the standing Committee on European Affairs of the

Dutch

Tweede Kamer

and Mr Tuur ELZINGA, Chair of the standing Committee on European

Affairs of the Dutch

Eerste Kamer

1. Opening of the meeting

Welcome address by Ms Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL, President of the Dutch

Eerste

Kamer

Introductory remarks by Mr Malik AZMANI, Chair of the Committee on European

Affairs of the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

Ms Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL, President of the

Eerste Kamer,

mentioning her long experience as a

member of COSAC, stressed the vital role of the Committees on EU Affairs in ensuring that

national Parliaments scrutinised effectively EU legislation and in maintaining the political dialogue

with Brussels. According to Ms BROEKERS-KNOL, good cooperation among the national

Parliaments and with the European Parliament was also vital. She stressed that all parliamentarians

played an important role in bridging the gap between EU citizens and EU institutions and in

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

securing a democratic and transparent EU decision making process, while safeguarding check and

balances

vis-à-vis

the national governments, as well as in Brussels.

The President expressed the view that,

n spite of all progress made following the entry into force of

the Lisbon Treaty, a lot more could be done to improve the cooperation. She underlined that in an

EU facing a multiple series of crises, it was essential to stand firm in defending the EU’s free, open,

democratic society and in protecting the rule of law. She reminded that the COSAC meeting could

create the necessary common ground. Concluding, she remarked that the Presidency had decided to

upgrade the level of innovation as regarded communication in support of a long tradition of

democratic institutions providing a sustainable Europe to future generations.

The Chair, Mr Malik AZMANI, welcomed newly elected representatives to the post of

Chairpersons, namely Ms Izabela KLOC, Chair of the European Union Affairs Committee of the

Polish

Sejm

and Ms Mette GJERSKOV, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the Danish

Folketing.

He said that the Presidency had started by putting the accent on the most important issues

that needed to be tackled. In his opinion, the migrants’ crisis and the continuous

pressure on the EU

borders had showed that the EU was confronted to endless challenges and that unity was not always

granted. He reminded of the common responsibilities and challenges that called for common

positions.

2. Adoption of the agenda of the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

Mr AZMANI briefly presented the draft agenda of the meeting. The agenda of the COSAC

Chairpersons' meeting was approved without amendment.

3. Organisation and co-operation of parliamentary scrutiny on the basis of a case study

focussing on EUROPOL

Key question: How do parliaments scrutinise documents and decisions in practice? How do

European Affairs committees and standing committees exchange and cooperate? How are

contacts with the European Parliament organised?

Introduction by moderator: Mr Tom DE BRUIJN, former Ambassador of the Netherlands to the

European Union from 2003 to 2011

Contribution by Ms Danielle AUROI, Chair of the EU Affairs Committee, French

Assemblée

nationale

and Mr Veli YÜKSEL,

Belgian Chambre des représentants

Mr DE BRUIJN introduced the session and recalled that the role of national Parliaments in the

scrutiny of the EU decision making process had been rather controversial, based on the existence of

two separate areas of democratic legitimacy. This situation changed with the Lisbon Treaty and the

so called "yellow card". Mr DE BRUIJN recalled how the role of national Parliaments in the EU

decision making process was a key element of negotiations for the Dutch after the rejection of the

Constitutional Treaty in 2005. He pointed out that the goal of the following exercise was to discuss

how national Parliaments controlled their governments, how they collaborated with each other and

with the European Parliament. He explained that the regulation on EUROPOL was a direct result of

Article 88 (2) TFEU providing for the Agency’s

scrutiny by the European Parliament together with

the national Parliaments. Mr DE BRUIJN stressed the importance of a proposal from the European

Parliament concerning the creation of a joint parliamentary scrutiny group foreseen in Article 53 of

the regulation.

Ms AUROI first gave a short historical review of the procedure in the French

Assemblée nationale

where the first action concerning EUROPOL was a resolution adopted in June 2003 advocating

parliamentary scrutiny over the Agency by an organ composed both of national and EU

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

parliamentarians and mentioned different initiatives undertaken by various organs of her Chamber.

Ms AUROI underlined the constant cooperation with other committees of the

Assemblée nationale,

with the European Parliament, as well as with the French

Sénat.

In the course of her exchange with Mr DE BRUIJN, Ms AUROI mentioned that, when drafting a

resolution, the Committee on European Affairs worked with two rapporteurs, one representing the

majority and one the opposition, stressing that the work was based on striking a compromise. She

underlined that her Committee constantly solicited the attention and

support of other Committees’

members in raising awareness on EU legislation; in this way, the European Affairs issues fed the

national debate. In addition, she mentioned the question time with the government, referring namely

to specific questions addressed before certain meetings of the Council of the EU to specific

ministers and not only to EU Affairs ministers. Furthermore, she mentioned the adoption of a

resolution, prior to the December European Council meeting,

presenting the Chamber’s views on

the Council’s

agenda. Finally, she informed the participants about the joint meetings held between

the French

Assemblée nationale,

the French

Sénat

and the French Members of the European

Parliament.

Concerning the role of national Parliaments in relation to the Interparliamentary Conference under

Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary

Union (IPC SECG) and the fiscal compact mechanisms, Ms AUROI stressed that whenever there

was a dialogue between MPs and MEPs and European issues were not left exclusively to the

Executive bodies, the representatives of the citizens showed attention to all subjects at all levels. As

far as the IPC SECG and fiscal compact procedures were concerned, she stressed the sensitivity of

these to national Parliaments as they related to national budgets and the way national Parliaments

contributed to EU actions. She underlined that the rules that had recently been put in place allowed

the national representatives to discuss with relevant Commissioners and ministers and to raise

issues at the right time during the European semester. She pointed out that the creation of a

Parliament for the Eurozone would allow more transparency to the citizens and would be an

improvement as far as democracy was concerned, without side-lining the European Parliament.

Mr Marc ANGEL, Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

mentioned that one session of the

forthcoming EU Speakers Conference would be dedicated to the role of national Parliaments and

the scrutiny of EUROPOL. He also stressed that, like the Committee on EU Affairs of the French

Assemblée nationale,

the Committee on Foreign and European Affairs, on Defence, Cooperation

and Immigration invited the Luxembourg Members of the European Parliament to its meetings on

Monday mornings and encouraged them to participate in the meetings of other standing committees.

He stressed that this interconnection was very important.

On behalf of the European Parliament, Ms HÜBNER congratulated the Presidency on the choice of

topics, which not only were fundamental issues, but also highlighted best practices. She underlined

that the joint work of national Parliaments and the European Parliament on EUROPOL would be

important because in the future there would be many other issues that would require a similar

approach. She pointed out that it was now up to the European Parliament and to the national

Parliaments to do what was still do be done to make the joint scrutiny committee operational. She

concluded expressing her hope that the first report submitted by EUROPOL to parliamentary

scrutiny would show more Member States sharing information among them. That, according to her,

was the fundamental point in solving the problems faced.

Mr Veli YÜKSEL first elaborated on the way the EU file was dealt with at the different levels of

the Belgian institutions. He stressed how important EUROPOL was as an EU Agency in the context

of the current terrorist threats and how the scrutiny of it was as important as its functioning.

Referring to instruments of scrutiny, he referred first to the Federal advisory committee on

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

European Affairs of the Belgian Parliament, pointing out that, as was the case in France, the Federal

Committee held debates before and after European summits with the Belgian Prime Minister

concerning the priorities and the input of the government as well as concerning the outcomes of

each Summit. Mr YÜKSEL indicated that Belgian members of the European Parliament, as well as

members of the Belgian regional parliaments, could join these debates. He then explained the role

of so-called Euro-promoters selected at the beginning of every new legislative term by every

standing Committee of the Parliament, who were responsible for following all debates and decisions

at EU level falling under the remit of each Committee, for following the implementation of national

legislation and for acting as a go-between the Belgian Parliament and the EU institutions. He added

the different Committees’ regular

scrutiny function.

Mr YÜKSEL then explained that, due to Belgium’s complicated institutional structure, the Federal

Parliament first checked whether each issue fell under its competence or not. If yes, Mr YÜKSEL

continued, the adequate committee would draft a text on the specific legislative initiative; if not, the

issue would be dealt at the level of the regional parliaments according to their own instruments and

traditions. EUROPOL was deemed a federal competence. Mr YÜKSEL mentioned the

recommendation of the EU Affairs Committee of the Belgian

Chambre des représentants,

including

its reference to the Belgian system of oversight of Law enforcing agencies. He explained that the

Belgian oversight system was based on a special committee which he considered to be a good

example for the parliamentary scrutiny of EUROPOL.

Nine Members of Parliament intervened in the following debate.

Ms Ana BIRCHALL, Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor,

explained that the latest version of the

EUROPOL regulation addressed most of the concerns of the Romanian Parliament, adding that

Romania contributed substantially to the activities of EUROPOL and INTERPOL. She welcomed

the joint parliamentary scrutiny by the national Parliaments and the European Parliament. She drew

attention to the importance of bringing the EU closer to its citizens by having a closer dialogue and

cooperation between national Parliaments and the EU institutions.

Referring to their respective federal systems, Ms Olga ZRIHEN, Belgian

Sénat

and Mr Stefan

SCHENNACH, Austrian

Bundesrat,

underlined that that the various levels of governance had to be

taken into account, in particular the regional level. Considering the fact that the establishment of

EUROPOL also had an impact on regional and local levels, both considered that support for such

measures should be as broad as possible at every level of governance. They concluded that it was

necessary to include the Committee of the Regions to the work.

Furthermore, Mr SCHENNACH expressed his view that COSAC was not yet working as it should;

national Parliaments needed to identify the most important proposals and to join forces in order to

make the instruments available more effective and to conjunctively face up the European

institutions. Referring to EUROPOL, he stated that confidentiality was not the most important

issue; the question was how to get more effective.

Lord BOSWELL, UK

House of Lords,

stated that consultation with different actors was essential to

the legislative process. He welcomed the position of the British government to strengthen and to

improve EUROPOL's capacities. The EUROPOL regulation must ensure the democratic legitimacy

through a specific structure, particularly because this would be the basis for any future joint

parliamentary structure. He welcomed the adoption of a structure for the Interparliamentary

Conference under Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the

Economic and Monetary Union and expressed his hope that the EU institutions would find an

agreement on the regulation in spring. He then appealed for cooperation between national

Parliaments, which he considered as being an effective tool to increase scrutiny over the executive.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

Referring to a practice in the Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

Mr ANGEL explained that the

audition of the national representatives of EUROPOL in the competent committees had proved its

effectiveness. Mr YÜKSEL regretted that this practice was not common in his Parliament. In his

view, an effective scrutiny of EUROPOL meant the establishment of a specific permanent control

system providing for clear rules and guidelines on the scrutiny of EUROPOL's activities.

Ms AUROI explained that the resolution adopted by the French

Assemblée nationale

did not foresee

the creation of a whole new structure but an extension of the Committee on Civil liberties, Justice

and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament with a view to including national

parliamentarians when dealing with questions in relation to EUROPOL. This joint committee would

be convened by the Chair of the European Parliament's LIBE Committee and the Chairperson of the

competent committee of the national Parliament holding the Presidency; it would be evenly

represented and would ensure democratic scrutiny of EUROPOL. She added that confidentiality

had to be maintained. Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK, Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

also underlined that

previous joint committee meetings organised by the LIBE Committee proved to be very fruitful and

enabled national parliamentarians to express their views.

Mr Paolo TANCREDI, Italian

Camera dei deputati,

highlighted that political dialogue had

improved considerably, however national Parliaments’ contributions should be better integrated into

the work of the European Parliament. He called for the establishment of specific provisions for the

scrutiny of EUROPOL's activities, including the frequent convening of meetings. In his view,

Article 53 of the draft regulation did not provide enough clarity; the role of the specialised body still

needed to be defined. He specified that this body should be composed of members of national

Parliaments and the European Parliament, and that it should be decided whether it should be a new

interparliamentary body or whether it should be based on the model of one of the existing

interparliamentary bodies. He suggested that COSAC should analyse this question and come up

with a common position.

Concluding the debate, Ms AUROI highlighted that COSAC was still the primary

interparliamentary structure to hold debates such as the one on EUROPOL. She sustained that

COSAC should continue the discussion on the structure of EUROPOL and in particular on Article

53, underlining that it was important to avoid the creation of unwieldy structures. Mr YÜKSEL

added that the democratic legitimacy implied the control of the institutions created. He concluded

that one way to bridge the gap between the citizens and the EU institutions was to step up

democratic control over European agencies.

Mr AZMANI summarised the main points expressed during the debate stressing that effective

scrutiny needed to be exercised early by all instruments available, stressing the practice of

appointing a rapporteur or "EU promoter", using parliamentary debates for controlling national

governments’ positions during question time and adopting resolutions

as a valuable instruction to

the government. He emphasised the need to exchange points of views between national Parliaments

and the European Parliament, as well as among national Parliaments themselves both at the regional

and the EU level.

4. Procedural issues and miscellaneous matters

- Briefing on the results of the Presidential Troika of COSAC

- Draft agenda of the LV COSAC

- Outline of the 25th Bi-Annual Report of COSAC

- Letters received by the Presidency

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

Mr AZMANI briefed the participants on the results of the Presidential Troika meeting organised the

previous day and presented the draft programme of the LV COSAC meeting in June. Mr AZMANI

proposed to focus the debates on practical constraints and cooperation between national Parliaments

and/or the European Parliament (e.g. use of rapporteurs) and to explore confirmed or promising

methods for improving parliamentary scrutiny. The second point on the agenda concerned the

practice, tools and instruments available to the national Parliaments in the field of the protection of

the rule of law. He mentioned that a short session on the state of play on the instruments currently

available to the national Parliaments ("yellow and green cards") was foreseen. Another proposed

item would be a session on parliamentary diplomacy focussing on relations with third countries and

their parliaments. The session on the work of the European Court of Auditors together with the use

of their reports by national Parliaments and the session on migration were envisaged as last points

in the meeting in June. Mr AZMANI assured that, in case of further developments of other issues

(e.g. Brexit), these would be taken into account when drafting the final programme.

The participants were informed about the outline of the 25th Bi-annual Report, consisting of three

chapters: 1) parliamentary scrutiny of the EU legislation, 2) the role of national Parliaments in

upholding the rule of law and 3) the parliamentary diplomacy. He announced that the questionnaire

would be distributed by the 29 February 2016 and that the deadline for replies was set for the 29

March 2016, urging the participants to respect the deadline.

Finally, the Chair reported on the Troika's decisions as regards the letters received by the

Presidency.

Ms HÜBNER, expressing her support to the agenda of the June meeting, proposed to add a point

concerning the decision of the European Parliament to amend the Act concerning the election of the

members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage serving as the basis for the

European elections for 40 years. She wanted to know whether the national Parliaments would be

interested in entering into a dialogue with the European Parliament. Mentioning the complexity of

this procedure requiring unanimity in the Council, ratification by the national Parliaments and an

absolute majority in the European Parliament, she explained that the aim was to give the European

citizens equal rights by harmonising the threshold, the level of information on the EU issues and to

align the dates of elections in the Member States. She added that the European Parliament was

prepared to have an exchange/dialogue either in the COSAC, which could add to the importance of

COSAC, or within another framework.

Mr AZMANI responded that this question could be further explored during the LV COSAC

meeting or during the Slovak Presidency.

There were three reactions from the audience.

Mr Gunther KRICHBAUM, German

Bundestag,

stressed that the political topics should not be

avoided and referred to the migration crisis and the situation in Ukraine. Moreover, he added that

COSAC should not focus on institutional questions only, but should also discuss policies. He

concluded by appealing to the delegations to give more trust to the Troika and keep the number of

amendments to the contributions and conclusions reasonable.

Mr BIZET, French

Sénat,

pointed out that the energy questions together with the information

technologies were at the very heart of the EU's economic development, in particular the Single

Market and were important for reconciling the citizens with the EU institutions. Ms Lolita

ČIGĀNE, Latvian

Saeima,

appreciated that the Presidency would organise a thematic conference on

these topics and informed that the Latvian committee on EU affairs had issued a statement

reviewing the energy policies and valued the debate which was ongoing in the European

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

Parliament. She added that there were some points of concern, especially regarding the project Nord

Stream II.

Mr AZMANI, referring to the draft programme of the LV COSAC already presented, responded

that the topic of energy proposed, as well as migration and human trafficking, would be dealt with

during thematic conferences organised under the Dutch Presidency. The topic of energy would also

be addressed during the Slovak Presidency.

5. European priorities for 2016 and beyond

Key focus of the 2016 European Commission work programme

Speaker: Ms Kristalina GEORGIEVA, European Commission, Vice-President for Budget and

Human Resources

The Dutch 2016 EU Presidency

Speaker: Mr Bert KOENDERS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands

In his opening remarks, Mr ELZINGA pointed at the overview distributed to the participants

resuming the scrutiny priorities of some national Parliaments based on the Commission’s Work

Programme (CWP) and encouraged the rest of the national Parliaments to undergo the same

exercise in order to perform subsidiarity checks or other form of scrutiny. Sharing priorities was an

important step towards influencing the EU decision-making and enhancing the scrutiny of

governments in the meetings of the Council of the EU.

Ms Kristalina GEORGIEVA explained that the CWP comprised 10 priorities and 23 components

which reflected the challenges the EU was facing. The top priority had been the European agenda

on migration, where Ms GEORGIEVA mentioned the steps taken in the last months, notably the

establishment of hotspots in Greece and Italy. For this year, the most important proposal was linked

to the European Boarder and Coast Guard, where the European Commission was counting on

national Parliaments’ help. This would, according to the Commissioner, allow strengthening the

response and improving the common asylum system.

The European agenda on security, jobs, growth and investment remained one of the top priorities.

Ms GEORGIEVA mentioned the European Fund of Strategic Investment which had brought the

impact of 50 billion

€ over the past six months,

and in this area, the digital and energy market

strategies would be crucial to broaden and strengthen the internal market. Improving the conditions

for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups would be part of the plan to boost the

Single Market; other initiatives in the area included the action plan on VAT and fair, efficient and

growth-friendly corporate taxation. She underlined that other priorities focussed on completing the

banking union, building a capital market union to finance the real economy and creating the

European pillar of social rights. In the social pillar, the Vice-President said, a lot of progress was

expected during the Dutch Presidency.

Ms GEORGIEVA reflected briefly on the sustainability driven externally by the Agreement of the

United Nations on the sustainable development goals and the Paris agreement and internally by the

EU action plan for the Circular Economy, appreciating the effort of 16 Parliaments/Chambers

which had participated in the joint opinion on food waste.

She gave an account of external challenges and the latest European Commission's activities in this

area, amongst those addressing the conflicts with help of international partners in Syria, Libya,

Ukraine, renewing the European neighbourhood policy and contributing to the new global strategy

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

on foreign and security policy. The challenges, she mentioned, required the institutions to work

together in order to prioritise in the legislative process.

Ms GEORGIEVA touched upon the awaiting revision of the multiannual financial framework,

where the flexibility to face the current challenges would be needed. She appreciated the approach

of the European Parliament to have such flexibility granted. The revision would require unanimity

in the Council of the European Union. Protecting the unity of the Union in these difficult times

would play an important role in this revision. The discussions should build upon the principle of

multiple objectives for the same money.

In order to make efficient use of resources and to be accountable to the citizens, the concept of the

budget focussed on results would include increasing the leveraging impact of the budget, improving

indicators, simplifying delivery and improving transparency.

The Vice-President concluded her speech informing that there was ongoing discussion on the shift

towards the genuine own resources.

Mr Bert KOENDERS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, gave a short overview of

previous COSAC meetings organised by the Dutch Presidencies contributing to democratic

legitimacy, accountability and relations between the national Parliaments and the European

Parliament.

Mr KOENDERS described that the many political conflicts nurtured instability at the EU borders

and threatened the fabric of European cooperation. Dialogue and readiness to make compromises

were crucial for the debate on the future. He expressed the willingness of the Dutch Presidency to

leave the Union in a better shape. He stressed the fact that in many countries there was little support

for deeper and further integration and citizens were becoming unconvinced of the ability of the EU

to tackle the current problems.

Unity and firm solidarity with countries under pressure were crucial to tackle the migration crisis,

he added. He stated that there was a lack of sense of urgency in implementing the agreements made

on registration, identification and fair distribution. He suggested that this situation was affecting the

relations between Member States, was impacting solidarity and the functioning of the Schengen

zone. In order to revert this situation, the confidence and support of the European citizens needed to

be regained.

Besides the migration and international security, Mr KOENDERS stressed that the Presidency

would continue to promote a deeper and fairer Single Market, a more transparent digital market and

a fairer internal market in terms of equality of the pay for the work across the EU. According to Mr

KOENDERS, the effective governance in all Member States, structural reforms for economies and

budgets were vital to the foundation of a strong European Monetary Union.

Mr KOENDERS added that, within the 2030 Climate and Energy Package, the Dutch Presidency

would mainly discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) revision and would continue working

on other pillars of the Energy union.

Mr KOENDERS stressed the importance of connections between the Member States and the

institutions, between the EU and its citizens, between the national Parliaments representing 500

million Europeans, European Parliament and the European Commission. According to Mr

KOENDERS, it was crucial to maintain balance between effectiveness and democratic legitimacy,

as well as between doing things at national level and tackling problems at European level when a

common solution was needed.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

Mr KOENDERS added that the role of national Parliaments in the EU had not evolved the same

way as for other players. Therefore, he believed that their role could be expanded through the

enhanced use of the "yellow" and "orange" cards and through the structured dialogue with the

European Commission; through involving Parliaments in the process of determining the Member

States’ position in the Council and, lastly, via interparliamentary cooperation.

Mr KOENDERS expressed that the New Settlement for the UK would be followed with interest,

since it was important for the whole of the EU. He highlighted that the instrument of a "red card"

would strengthen the role of the Parliaments in the EU decision-making process and would increase

the Union’s democratic legitimacy.

He concluded with remarks on increasing transparency to improve public confidence and help

national Parliaments exert influence in EU policy making and control their governments. To that

end, he said the Presidency would push for the register of delegated acts and a database on the state

of play of different legislative files, expressing his hope that the Interinstitutional Agreement on

better law-making would be signed into law soon.

In the debate which followed, 22 speakers took the floor.

Many of them addressed the topic of migration. Amongst others, Ms AUROI, Mr YÜKSEL and Mr

Anastasios KOURAKIS, Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

expressed the view that solidarity was needed to

tackle the problems relating to the migration crisis. Mr KOURAKIS added that Greece was ready to

work with the European institutions while solidarity on financial level, on capacity building and

financial support was also needed.

Mr José Ignacio SANCHEZ, Spanish

Cortes Generales: Congreso de los Diputados,

focussed on

the situation in the south-eastern part of Europe. He pointed out that there was a domino effect; the

restrictive policies in Northern Europe may make the situation worse for the people waiting at the

borders. Therefore, the EU needed to work with Turkey, not threaten Greece and help Serbia. Mr

Kamal Izidor SHAKER, Slovenian

Državni zbor,

specifically mentioned the Former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia and Greece, for which extra resources should be made available. Stopping

the illegal migration there would be of benefit for the Schengen system and, consequently, no strict

border control would be needed in the whole in the Western Balkans.

Mr Şaban DIŞLI, Turkey

Büyük Millet Meclisi,

expressed that a lot of refugees were coming to Turkish borders with only

limited resources available. He expressed his concern that the crisis could further hurt Europe and

asked what measures the Dutch Presidency had in mind to tackle this topic.

The issue of border control was raised by many members. Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK, Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

mentioned the control of common borders as the most important aim. He stated that

it was a Member States’ competence and any EU action was complementary to national measures.

Ms Ana BIRCHALL, Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor,

associated this topic to the threat of terrorism

and the fight against radicalisation; she stressed the importance of implementing recent legislative

proposals, among them those on smart borders. Mr Dominik TARCZYŃSKI, Polish

Sejm,

underlined that Poland had the biggest external border. He mentioned that current measures in

Poland were about the security of citizens. The important issue to resolve was the distinction

between immigrants and refugees.

Ms ČIGĀNE asked the European Commission and the Dutch Presidency what further steps they

would take to move forward on the issue of the EU border control and coastal guards. Secondly, she

asked how to move forward on the visa liberalisation for Georgia and Ukraine, as it was important

for stabilisation in the region.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

Mr Jean BIZET, French

Sénat,

urged to think about the idea of Schengen when discussing

migration. When failing to protect the borders in the EU, he believed Schengen, one of the

cornerstones of the EU, to be at stake. Ms Nadia GINETTI, Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

added

that the Schengen system must be continued, but at the same time border control must work. She

asked the European Commission to play its role of guarantor of the treaties and implementation of

existing rules.

Mr Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, European Parliament, asked the Dutch Presidency when the

EU would have a real common asylum and refugee policy. The European Commission had not yet

received a mandate from Council to draft a comprehensive policy. At the moment, the EU was

forced to improvise with the various partial legislative packages. As a result, he said, the EU

citizens were ever more exasperated and the EU had a humanitarian deficit because of the failure to

act.

Ms Regina BASTOS, Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

stated that since 2008 the EU had had

several crises. There was the financial crisis, and now the refugee crisis and the threat of terrorism.

As the social crisis remained, she asked the European Commission how support, also on financial

level, was offered.

Some members expressed their support for the current priorities of the European Commission and

the Dutch Presidency. Ms AUROI highlighted the need, after COP21, to work on Energy issues,

like the Energy Union. Ms BIRCHALL added that every Member State should be able the set its

own Energy mix. She further added the relevance of the European Eastern Partnership to stay on the

agenda.

Some parliamentarians gave their point of view on the steps that were made in their countries in the

enlargement process. Mr Aleksandar SENIC, Serbia -

Narodna

skupština,

referred to the recent start

of negotiations on chapters between the EU and Serbia. He urged for larger support to the reforms

in the Western Balkans, as he felt that a clear perspective on membership was a factor of stability in

the region. Ms Marija ĆATOVIĆ,

Montenegro -

Skupština Crne Gore,

expressed

Montenegro’s

commitment to the enlargement process. Ms Majlinda BREGU, Albania -

Kuvendi i Shqipërisë,

referred to a COSAP meeting of countries of the Western Balkans, where it was agreed to send a

proposal to the secretariat of the Berlin Process to involve the Parliaments in its process. Ms Arta

DADED, Albania -

Kuvendi i Shqipërisë,

pointed out that the countries in the Western Balkans had

made contributions to the security issues and so they were part of the common challenges.

Ms Anniken HUITFELDT, Norwegian

Storting,

stressed the source of instability in the Middle East

that was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Referring to the issue of settlements in occupied territories,

she stated that violations of international law should not be tolerated and that double standards

should be avoided when it came to addressing the acts either of Russia or of Israel.

Lord Timothy BOSWELL, UK

House of Lords,

welcomed the European Commission's slim down

work programme and the businesslike tone set by the Dutch Presidency. He asked the European

Commission to offer some perspective on the future when it came to the initiative to further ensure

that national Parliaments had a strong voice in EU decision-making.

Sir William CASH, UK

House of Commons,

explained the reasons why there was a referendum in

the UK, namely because of the lack of trust in democratic

legitimacy. The treaties’ architecture

could not provide the closeness of the EU citizens that was needed. Mr Gunther KRICHBAUM,

German

Bundestag,

replied that it was also the task of parliamentarians to explain Europe better. He

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

stressed that there was a task to accomplish, as Europe was needed as a solution to many problems

like the ones of migration and terrorism. Participation of every Member State therefore was needed.

In her response, Ms GEORGIEVA expressed the wish to work together with national Parliaments.

She referred to the "yellow card", to the developments on the "green card" which provided the

European Commission with useful views from national Parliaments and also to the "red card" as

recently proposed by Mr Donald TUSK, President of the European Council. She explained the idea

of the "red card" and mentioned that the European Commission was very willing to advice and

provide support for

Mr TUSK’s ideas. She also mentioned that national

Parliaments had 12 weeks

to express their subsidiarity concerns to issue such a card simply because there were no treaties

parameters on this.

Furthermore, she expressed the view that, when it came to the enlargement process, the economies

would benefit from it and further reform would be supported. She added that financial support for

EU Member States to tackle the social crisis was available through different programmes, which

targeted, among others, youth employment and SMEs.

On the topic of migration Ms GEORGIEVA stated that it was important to get the whole picture of

what was happening in the world. A combination of violent extremism, climate change and

population growth in parts of the world caused the huge flows of refugees. The process of

displacement had no signals of abating very soon. Therefore, EU policy should focus on tackling

the root causes of migration and it should take into account the capability to protect the EU’s

external borders. This way a distinction could be made between genuine asylum seekers, economic

migrants and terrorists. She said that required work on all fronts. First, she mentioned the

significant investments in fragile areas and in the region; secondly, the need to protect borders and

to manage asylum in the EU in a more harmonious way; and, finally, the need to show solidarity

and to save the Schengen zone.

Mr KOENDERS, first focussing on terror and insecurity, said it was important to implement current

rules and measures. This did not mean there was no vision; the main focus had been clear. Tackling

radicalisation, but also ensuring prevention and repression were key elements in this field. He

stressed the complexity of these issues and the need to work on several of them at the same time.

The Council and the European Commission were looking into the topic of cybersecurity, as it was a

very specific type of threats. Cooperation with all actors, including the private ones, involved was

needed.

On the Israel and Palestinian issues, he agreed that it should not be forgotten even though the

attention was now mainly on the migration crisis and countries like Syria. On enlargement, he

expressed the view that all efforts must be judged on their merits, the pace of negotiation was not

time-based. It should be about being strict and fair. On the question on visa liberalisation, he also

mentioned two elements that should be balanced; fostering engagement on the one hand and

applying strict conditions on the other.

Migration was a very complex dossier, Mr KOENDERS explained. There were multiple factors

involved that were interconnected that called for work in the region, support and effective

cooperation. He called on national governments and Parliaments to carry out their promises on

external border control, stressing that that was a priority of the Dutch Presidency and emphasising

that solidarity, as well as assistance in implementation of current rules and measures were needed.

Concluding the debate and the meeting, Mr ELZINGA referred to the discussion of EU scrutiny

within Parliaments and as part of interparliamentary cooperation. In addition, he mentioned the

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 374: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde i Haag

review of the CWP and the priorities of the Dutch Presidency presented in the meeting's second

session. All that had to be seen also as a thorough preparation of the LV COSAC meeting of June

2016. He then, also on behalf of Mr AZMANI, thanked all those who made the meeting a success.