26 September 1995

Doc. 7404

1403-26/9/95-14-E

CONTRIBUTION

by the Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations

to the debate of the Assembly on

the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference

of the European Union

by Mrs RAGNARSDÓTTIR,

Iceland, European Democratic Group

I. Introduction

1.       As the report1 rightly states, the Council of Europe is bound to pay close attention to the preparatory work on the 1996 IGC because the decisions to be taken at the Conference will affect the building of Greater Europe, which extends well beyond the institutional geographical area covered or to be covered in future by the Union and is almost entirely represented at the Council of Europe2.

2.       The institutional area is not the only reason why the Council of Europe is concerned with the IGC, and the Rapporteur points out another, which is self-evident: the Council of Europe's achievements in various areas of activity which have formed, and continue to form, the basis for its co-operation with the Union. The joint efforts of the two organisations can do much to avoid a split between the member countries of the Union and the other countries in Europe.

3.       In realistic terms the following facts must be taken on board:

—       On account of its recent enlargement and before further expansion, the European Union must pull together in order to become a strong entity rather than a merely viable one. This demands a degree of homogeneity in the political, institutional and economic situations of current and would-be member countries. There can be no prospect of achieving this cohesive and homogeneous fabric across 40 countries for a long time, not only because the changes to some countries' economic systems will take time, but also because the problems of institutional reform among the Fifteen are so complex that it is becoming increasingly difficult to devise satisfactory solutions.

—       To avoid the emergence of another wall which would replace the Berlin Wall and separate the countries able to join the European Union from the others, what is needed is an institutional framework with political aims, in which all countries can come together on an equal footing and undertake activities which gradually strengthen the ties between them. That framework exists: the Council of Europe.

—       Both organisations were planned before the collapse of the Berlin Wall and must adapt to a new situation in Europe, whose aspirations to peace make unity essential. This demands a debate unfettered by the conditioning of the past. In deciding to promote institutional reform, the members of the European Union have demonstrated their understanding of the fact that this is an inescapable turning point in history. In failing to make the same effort with regard to the Council of Europe, those same governments, which are members of the Council and form a significant circle within it, show that they are considering only some of the implications of that turning point. The enlargement of the Council of Europe and the diversification of its activities are not really taken into account. This attitude is somewhat puzzling, given the realisation, that the European Union is capable of great achievements but cannot do everything.

II. Complementarity between the European Union and the

Council of Europe: a key asset in the building of Europe

4.       In view of the mistake now entrenched in the language of politics and the media (especially in the West) — confusing Europe and the European Union although the latter represents only a part of it — it should be asserted whenever necessary that, as Philippe Séguin, Speaker of the French National Assembly, said in his speech to the Parliamentary Assembly, "Europe will either be continent-wide or will not exist" (6 October 1994). Still less should one refer to a Greater Europe of 22 or 25 countries, as some people do, since this would be unfairly discriminatory and politically damaging to the 20 or 15 other countries. Discussion about the building of Europe must be inspired by the concept of a "Europe of the 40", even among those who at the IGC will only be able to open up the Union to a part of Europe.

5.       It is this comprehensive approach that will enable them to gain a more accurate idea of the possibilities and limitations of the Union's action across the continent and direct their discussions more effectively towards the possibilities of complementarity with other institutions, especially the Council of Europe, of which they are also members.

6.       Moreover, the scope for the European Union's pan-European action will be all the greater if the member governments succeed in setting limits on its enlargement to ensure an optimum threshold for internal cohesion and efficiency in promoting the reciprocal interests of members and non-members. Europe needs a politically and economically strong European Union. It would be risky to plan a hard core within the Union. The high degree of integration required by the Maastricht Treaty is hard to combine with flexible arrangements for union. On the other hand, the Fifteen could form a hard core which would be beneficial for the continent as a whole if they acted as the driving force in the area in which the Union raises the greatest hopes: economic affairs. Integration with the ultimate aim of supranationality is not necessarily the goal of countries keen to assert their recently recovered national identities; the speech given by the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Vaçlav Klaus, before the Parliamentary Assembly (on 30 January 1995) is quite significant in this respect. It is clearly essential that the Union should decide on its objectives in relation to Europe as a whole before considering enlargement. Ambiguity over these issues is generating disturbing uncertainties for Europe's peoples.

7.       Under these circumstances the need for a debate on complementarity between the European Union and the Council of Europe should be self-evident. It should not, however, be embarked upon with a static idea of their future. As indicated in paragraph 3, third sub-paragraph, the Council of Europe's role has not yet been reviewed despite the Council's new pan-European dimension and the markedly broader range of its activities. As is clear from Mr Masseret's report, the Council of Europe is not simply the organisation of human rights and democracy. It is a standard-setting organisation providing a frame of reference on a wide range of social issues and, as such, plays a decisive part in the emergence and consolidation of the new democracies and acts as a link between the Union members and the others. Strangely enough, the Vienna Summit confined itself to a stereotyped view of the Council of Europe.

III. Aspects of complementarity

8.       A discussion of complementarity between two institutions must necessarily be informed by a choice of key issues, which could be firstly the two institutions' basic aims with regard to Europe and secondly the specific features of their parliamentary organs.

      i.       Pan-European aims of the two institutions

9.       Where the two institutions' aims are concerned, the economic area established by the European Union may be described as the chief attraction, past and present, for countries applying for membership and the European Union may therefore be regarded as playing a dominant part in this area of the building of Europe.

10.       As demonstrated by Mr Masseret's report, the Council of Europe's aim is to develop a legal area deriving from the harmonisation of social (in the broad sense) and cultural policies. A study of the programmes it offers reveals the potential for co-operation between the two institutions in a variety of areas.

11.       It should be pointed out that the danger of duplication is past. The commitments made in the two organisations differ in nature and extent, since the European Union pursues the goal of integration and the Council of Europe seeks to strengthen ties between states. The membership of the two institutions is different, despite a substantial number of common members.

12.       Looking ahead to a united Europe, these differing features allow the necessary flexibility in the choice of methods for bringing the continent's peoples closer together.

      ii.       Interparliamentary co-operation

13.       Parliaments are the pillars of pluralist democracy, but they do not act as a driving force in the building of Europe, particularly because executive power assumed greater weight during the long years in which the world was split into two blocs and because European affairs were treated as foreign affairs — in a way which would now be anachronistic — whereas they were gradually becoming domestic affairs.

14.       The outcome of this state of affairs is quite tangible: across the continent people's feeling for Europe lacks depth. Only elected representatives, whose duties keep them close to the citizens, can genuinely rally public support; and even they need to be more involved in the decision-making process both at national level and at European level, where national parliaments are represented.

15.       The "democratic deficit" also reflects the institutional position of the European Parliament in the Union. However, while there is much talk in Union circles of bolstering the powers of the European Parliament, this will definitely not — even if it comes about — be enough to fill the gap. The close results in some referenda and the decision not to hold referenda in other countries are significant in this respect.

16.       The European Parliament and national parliaments are in different situations. The former operates full-time in an extraterritorial area, while the latter devote much of their time to activities inside their own borders, which means that they are in closer touch with their constituents. Generally speaking, it may be said that the development of complementarity between the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is a European forum for national parliaments, should logically be accompanied by the strengthening of their respective roles.

17.       The Parliamentary Assembly offers national parliaments institutional facilities for greater involvement in European affairs, whether in the Union or in Europe as a whole. For example, its Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Economic Affairs provide the Central and East European countries with an opportunity for very useful discussions with their counterparts in the other half of Europe on Community issues affecting debates in their national parliaments.

18.       When it comes to issues whose scope exceeds Community boundaries, Parliamentary Assembly debates provide a broader perspective for European Parliament debates.

19.       But in order to place national parliaments in a better position to handle Community affairs, should consideration be given to, as well as a better definition of their role, the setting up of a Second Chamber, limited to representatives of Union member states and enabling a new balance to be struck in Community legislative power?

20.       This discussion might be interesting but yet a very hypothetical one, even utopia as Mr Masseret himself suggests. The democratic deficit within the Community is one matter to be discussed at the 1996 IGC. The European Parliament and the national parliaments of the 15 European Union member states are discussing the role of the European Parliament versus the role of national parliaments. COSAC (a conference of national parliamentary bodies specializing in Community Affairs) has not, up to now, proven to be a venue to conciliate different ideas. Furthermore, the idea of a second chamber might create a two layer Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the members forming a second chamber of the Union, and the rest of the members, who are not from European Union member states. In reality this seems to be a thing for the 15 member states of the European Union to decide on their own, if there should be a second chamber alongside the European Parliament. The Council of Europe should concentrate on its role in Europe, not within the European Union. The Council of Europe is the true common denominator for Europe as a whole. It should emphasize the variety of its present activities and set up realistic goals for ever enhanced co-operation with the European Union.

*

* *

      Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 7373).

      This contribution was unanimously approved by the Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations on 26 September 1995.

      Secretary to the committee: Mr La Porta.

1 ¹Mr Masseret's report.

2 ²Member states: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.

      Special guests: Belarus, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Russia, Ukraine.