|
|
18 September 1992
Doc. 6673
1403-17/9/92-1-E
Report
on national parliaments and the construction of Europe
(Rapporteur: Mr MASSERET, France, Socialist)
SUMMARY
Representatives of some thirty national parliaments in Europe, the European Parliament, the Assemblies of the Western European Union, the BENELUX and the Nordic Council took part in a conference held in Brussels on 26 and 27 May 1992, organised jointly by the Belgian Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in order to discuss the construction of Europe which "is taking shape as a continent" and to consider their role in implementing such a project.
This event was characterised by an awareness of the national dimension in European affairs and the need to ensure that any project for European union was based on a democratic foundation, which would essentially depend on real participation by the peoples' representatives.
Discussion on the structures for European co-operation in which national parliaments are represented and on the Parliament of the Twelve highlighted the need to develop inter-institutional co-operation within the framework of the Council of Europe, on account of the fundamental values which it represents and its geographical dimension.
In response to the Final Declaration of Brussels, the Assembly Resolution recommends in general terms a strengthening of interparliamentary co-operation, which should enable national representatives to play a full part in bringing about European unification.
I. DRAFT RESOLUTION
1. The Assembly welcomes the conference organised with the Belgian parliament on the theme "national parliaments and the construction of Europe" (Brussels, 26-27 May 1992), attended by representatives of some thirty national parliaments, the European Parliament and the Assemblies of the Western European Union, BENELUX and the Nordic Council.
2. It shares the participants' conviction that:
i. peace cannot be achieved without a political project reflecting the whole continent's aspiration to commit its geographical, historical and cultural unity to an overall political organisation respecting the equality and diversity of all its members;
ii. it is a matter of urgency to make good the "democratic shortfall" threatening the very political basis of European construction, if we are not to see citizens turning away from Europe and the resurgence of exacerbated nationalism or closed corporatism, emerging;
iii. national parliaments, which represent the people, are ideal fora for the democratic debate, which must define European construction policies in accordance with citizens' wishes;
iv. elected representatives must seek the means of securing wide public participation in this grass-roots debate by informing the public of the issues involved in the various possible options;
v. drawing on the guidelines emerging from such consultation and the democratic debate, national parliaments must develop inter-parliamentary co-operation, not only between themselves or within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but also in the context of conferences attended by representatives of national parliaments and delegations from the assemblies of the various European organisations.
3. For that reason the Assembly invites national parliaments:
i. to make European construction one of their priority subjects of debate;
ii. to contribute to the development of European inter-parliamentary co-operation, which cannot fail to reinforce their own role;
iii. to marshall the resources for meticulous monitoring of the work of the European assemblies and to step up their co-operation with them;
iv. to convey to their respective governments their support for the proposals contained in Recommendation ... on the future of European construction;
v. to take steps to enable all citizens to participate more fully in the political project of European construction.
II. EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
by Mr Masseret
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 4
II. MOBILISATION OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS ................. 4
III. INSTITUTIONAL ORGANISATION OF EUROPEAN
CO-OPERATION ......................................... 6
Co-operation between the Parliamentary Assembly
and the European Parliament ........................... 7
Intergovernmental co-operation ........................ 7
IV. PROMOTION OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY .................. 8
V. CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 9
Appendix
FINAL DECLARATION OF THE CONFERENCE ON "THE NATIONAL
PARLIAMENTS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE",
Brussels, 26-27 May 1992 .............................. 10
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Attended by some one hundred and seventy members of parliament from 30 European countries, the Conference on "National Parliaments and the Construction of Europe" was held at the Palais de la Nation, the seat of the Belgian parliament in Brussels, on 26 and 27 May 1992.
2. In compliance with Order No. 452 (1990) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, this conference was jointly organised by the Assembly's Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations and the Belgian parliament.
3. In order to stress the dual European and national character of the event, the committee had requested that the conference be jointly organised by a national parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
4. Many delegations comprised high-level representatives: parliamentary speakers or chairmen of parliamentary foreign affairs committees, or chairmen of committees responsible for parliamentary
relations with the European Communities.
5. Participants' interest was manifested in the great many statements made and amendments proposed to the draft Final Declaration (no fewer than 32, most of which were accepted by the Drafting Committee).
6. The theme chosen for the Conference, "National Parliaments and the Construction of Europe", was geared to facilitating:
- the mobilisation of national parliaments vis-à-vis European construction;
- joint consideration of the means of putting the policies adopted into practice.
II. MOBILISATION OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
7. Mr Konecny's report was based on thirteen replies, seven of which had been drawn up by the parliaments of European Community member states. The replies represent a fairly significant sample. Greater Europe has not been dealt with as such in national parliaments, except in Switzerland and France. It has been referred to in debates centring on the Community.
8. Discussions merely touched on the geographical aspect, since current doubts and even conflicts, are blurring geographical contours still further.
9. The President of the Belgian Senate, Mr Frank Swaelen, put this question in his statement to the conference: "Should we be bound completely by geographical and cultural criteria, or should we extend our consideration to countries which are participating, or are applying to participate, in the European construction project even though they do not historically possess a European culture or are not geographically situated on the European continent?"
10. However, this theoretical question concerning the topographical delimitation of Europe exercised the conference less than the obdurate endeavour to find means of making good the "democratic shortfall" and taking up the challenge of building a Europe with which all European citizens could identify, and which took account of their diversity and also their aspiration to union.
11. Thus some speakers stressed the inadequate role played by national parliaments, regretting both the relative infrequency of debates on European construction and the lack of institutional resources to enable parliaments to guide or supervise governmental decisions on the organisation of either the Community or the continent of Europe as a whole.
12. The Final Declaration adopted by consensus at the close of the conference's business expressed the determination that national parliaments should take on greater responsibility in the construction of Europe, pointing out that they were the embodiment of popular representation. The conference agreed that "pan-European" (though this word was removed because it suggested hegemony co-operation) necessitated resolute commitment on the part of parliaments, in addition, of course, to the efforts of governments.
13. Resolute determination on the part of parliaments was also mentioned in the closing address given by Mr Miguel Angel Martinez, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, who, after touching on the phenomena of citizen rejection of or indifference to a technocratic Europe, declared, "The process of integrating national elected representatives into European construction must be accelerated and taken a stage further, so that the peoples can develop genuine awareness of their interdependence and hence of the need to reinforce solidarity." In so saying Mr Martinez seemed to reply to the comment in the opening speech by the Speaker of the Belgian Chamber of Deputies, Mr Charles-Ferdinand Nothomb, to the effect that an effort was needed to formulate "parliamentary democratic machinery at European level ...". Mr Nothomb had also mentioned the fact that the three characteristic functions of parliamentary democracy, viz. the legislative function, the financial function and the task of monitoring government, had to be fulfilled by a representative assembly which was in some way invested with legitimacy conferred by the electorate.
14. A resolute determination to achieve these ends is enshrined in the Final Declaration, which invites national parliaments, in co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly, to organise meetings in order to:
- analyse developments in Europe, identify prospects for its future organisation and consolidate its union;
- undertake such initiatives and actions of solidarity as are required for European construction;
- take account of the contribution of the European Community and the CSCE in the policies identified for the construction of Europe.
15. The Assembly is thus invited to share with national parliaments the responsibility for inter-parliamentary meetings to take stock of European co-operation within the various European organisations.
16. The Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, whose terms of reference are precisely to promote inter-parliamentary co-operation, is very naturally called upon to help implement the proposals adopted by the Brussels Conference.
III. INSTITUTIONAL ORGANISATION OF EUROPEAN CO-OPERATION
17. It is undoubtedly gratifying to see a conference, the great majority of whose participants are not members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, adopt a Declaration affirming that the Council of Europe is particularly well placed to provide the framework for a political project aimed at organising Europe as a whole.
18. Nevertheless, those present at the conference stressed the need to ensure complementarity between the various existing organisations, which must step up their co-operation in the light of the experience of Community integration.
19. There were no calls for new institutions, but there was universal support for reinforced co-operation, although the speakers placed the stress variably on the Council of Europe, the European Community, or the CSCE.
. The CSCE
20. Some participants came down in favour of the CSCE, or possibly a more structured version of it, stressing the potential advantage of the involvement of non-European partners in the construction of a solidarity-based entity. Such a view is also in keeping with the imperatives of reinforced European security.
. The European Community
21. Many speakers highlighted the great experience of integration accumulated by in the European Community.
22. However, a number of states in Central and Eastern Europe are torn between the enormous attraction of what they consider to be a bastion of stability and prosperity and the affirmation of their long, often fiercely, denied national identities and political independence. No one can pretend that the incorporation of all European states can be effected otherwise than in stages and with difficulty. Nor can we hide the fact that a balance must be struck between the binding procedures of Community decision-making and the persistent aspiration of states to maintain or consolidate their identities.
. The Council of Europe
23. The characteristic features of the workings of the Council of Europe would seem such that it can meet a somewhat paradoxical demand for pan-European co-operation and mutually respected autonomy.
24. To illustrate this paradox, I would like to quote a Polish delegate to the conference, Ms Grzeskowiak: "Each state belonging to Europe has its own identity, which constitutes its inner wealth. No state aspiring to the creation of a united Europe can afford to discard this identity".
25. So it is difficult to avoid mentioning the potential risk to the union of Europe of riding roughshod over national sensibilities.
26. It would be useful to set up a forum where all states could benefit from their different experiences and possibly work out joint approaches, on an equal footing.
27. That is the gist of the message set forth in the Final Declaration, whereby the representatives of national parliaments and European Assemblies concluded that the Council of Europe is "particularly well placed to provide the framework for (European) co-operation".
28. The Council of Europe has the following advantages:
- participation by all national parliaments represented in its Assembly as full members or special guests; consultation enabling governments represented in its Committee of Ministers to formulate solutions to the problems facing society; such solutions are easily accepted since they are jointly worked out, with due respect for the equality of all members;
- its democratic tradition safeguarding the rule of law and respect for human rights and consolidating the pluralistic systems in the member countries.
29. Defined in this way, the specific destiny of the Council of Europe manifestly makes it the requisite forum for structuring Europe continent-wide, again with due respect for the equality of all its component states. Nonetheless, the participants stressed the need to ensure complementarity between all the existing organisations, which must step up their co-operation, taking especial account of the development of Community integration.
As was the case in Brussels, those responsible for conferences must involve the European Parliament.
Co-operation between the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament
30. Relations between these two assemblies are maintained in regular meetings of their Bureaux. However, despite the organisational difficulties that would cause, it would also be desirable to extend the exchanges between the committees responsible for the same fields.
31. Discussion of European construction, particularly the Council of Europe's and the Community's contributions, necessitates more intensive contact between the two institutions. There is no shortage of subjects meriting joint consideration.
Intergovernmental co-operation
32. Although the construction of Europe cannot progress without the support of the peoples and consequently greater involvement by national parliaments, it is still essential for governments to provide political impetus.
33. For that reason, the Parliamentary Assembly should confirm the appeal launched in the Final Declaration to the heads of state to take the initiative, within the framework of the Council of Europe, of drawing up common guidelines.
34. The Final Declaration is referring here to pan-European co-operation as a means of establishing joint general guidelines to be followed by the various organisations and states, each within its own sphere of competence.
35. Two types of action might be envisaged to answer this appeal: at Committee of Ministers level and within the individual parliaments.
- One would take the form of a recommendation to the Committee of Ministers.
- The other might consist in prompting the competent committees of the national parliaments to take action on the Brussels Recommendation and Final Declaration, through the intermediary of the delegates to the conference.
36. Extending the Council of Europe's sphere of activity entails adapting its structures and increasing its resources.
IV. PROMOTION OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
37. The approach of reinforcing inter-parliamentary co-operation and supporting the intergovernmental impetus must undoubtedly be resolutely followed.
38. However, this is perhaps not the crux of the response we must find to the challenge of European construction solidly founded on the will of the European nations.
39. Nothing could be more dangerous, not only for the institutions but also for social harmony itself, than allowing the "democratic shortfall" to worsen, with what is currently perceived in some quarters as a threat to the legitimacy of European construction. The risk is that of allowing misunderstanding to arise and become exacerbated, until it becomes uncomprehending hostility, between a remote technocracy and a society fragmented into a myriad of centres of categorical demands, at the mercy of any wind that blows because of the failure to secure a democratic means of political expression.
40. It is therefore a matter of prime importance to find novel solutions to the current version of the European paradox: the exacerbated demand for regional identity rubbing shoulders with a general aspiration to unity.
41. It undoubtedly falls to the Council of Europe, whose statute already constitutes the foundation of the "European-style" state based on the rule of law, to further the discussion of this issue. More precisely, it would appear desirable that the Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations, which is oriented to conducting joint research into the workings of democracy on the basis of the experience of the 27 member states of the Council of Europe Assembly and the "special guests", initiate appropriate consideration of the operational preconditions for a fully participatory democracy. It would therefore be for a new standing sub-committee set up under the Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations to provide the Parliamentary Assembly with the results of discussions necessitated by the current lack of interest in politics, and even fears about European construction, symbol though it is of a continent which has finally become reconciled with itself and of a peaceful, prosperous future.
42. Aside from the highly desirable improvement of co-operation between institutions at both parliamentary and governmental levels, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe might draw on the said discussion of ways and means of securing participatory democracy to make a signal contribution to European construction by consolidating the foundation without which it could never stand fast: this foundation is public participation in the defining and running of the institutions governing people's lives.
V. CONCLUSIONS
43. No setting up of new organisations, co-operation among the various existing structures, and affirmation of the Council of Europe's special vocation: these would seem to be the major guidelines agreed at the Brussels Conference.
44. The organisation of co-operation and the identification of the ways and means of participatory democracy: these emerge as the primordial, urgent tasks which we must carry out if we are to give European construction the only genuinely solid basis, the only basis justifying our resolute commitment, the only basis faithful to the tradition and principles of our political institutions: the will of the people.
A P P E N D I X
FINAL DECLARATION
The parliamentarians participating in the conference consider that:
1. Europe is taking shape as a continent shares a common geography and interests which are the foundations of an area of democracy, peace and prosperity bringing together on an equal footing all European states that wish to be part of it;
2. the conflicts and tensions within this area and the risks of their aggravation and extension require a vision of co-operation which is strong enough to tackle them;
3. this co-operation requires, inter alia, the commitment of parliaments, the embodiment of popular representation and of governments alike, which should express their political will and harmonise their concepts of Europe, while respecting individual national identities;
4. the economic, technical, ecological and social changes of the modern world confront all the European peoples with new problems and dangers, and require constantly intensifying pan-European co-operation, drawing enrichment in particular from the experience of community integration.
Accordingly, the participants at the conference:
5. consider it necessary to agree upon a political design for Europe, which takes account of the European Community's arrangements as well as the different structures for co-operation which exist in Europe;
6. believe that the Council of Europe is particularly well placed to provide the framework for this co-operation, by virtue of:
- its vocation, approaching realisation, to welcome all European states as members;
- the flexibility of its working methods;
- the participation of all European national parliaments in its Assembly either as full members or with "special guest" status;
- its democratic tradition which guarantees the rule of law, respect for human rights and consolidates pluralist democratic regimes in member countries;
7. urge the Council of Europe to draw up the appropriate legal instruments to guarantee the rights of minorities;
8. invite national parliaments, in co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly, to organise meetings, involving the European Parliament, in order to:
- analyse developments in Europe, identify prospects for its future organisation and consolidate its union;
- take account of the contribution of European Community and the CSCE in working towards the construction of Europe;
- and undertake such initiatives and actions of solidarity as are required for European construction;
9. appeal the heads of state and government to take the initiative within the framework of the Council of Europe to identify common guidelines.
Reporting committee: Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: None.
Reference to committee: Order No. 452 (1990).
Draft resolution: Unanimously adopted by the committee on 11 September 1992.
Members of the committee: MM. Colombo (Chairman), Roman, Särkijärvi (Vice-Chairmen); Akarçali (Alternate: Keçeciler), Amaral, Attard Montalto, Bowden, Büchler, Columberg, Diaz Aguilar, Durand, Eversdijk, Fiorini, Mrs Grzeskowiak, Mrs Haglund, Mrs Hawlicek, MM. Horcsik, Hughes, Jensen, Jindrich Konecny, Laakso, Laverge (Alternate: Seeuws), Loutfi, Lummer, O'Brien, Mrs Ragnarsdottir, MM. Regenwetter, Stegagnini (Alternate: Fioret), Taliadouros, Vial-Massat (Alternate: Masseret), Mrs Willoch.
N.B. The names of those who took part in the vote are underlined.
Secretary to the committee: Mr La Porta.