THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

For centuries, peoples and states have taken up arms and waged war to win
control of the European continent. The debilitating effects of two bloody
wars and the weakening of Europe's position in the world brought a growing
realisation that only peace and concerted action could make the dream of a
strong, unified Europe come true. In order to banish once and for all the
demons of the past, a start was made with a coal and steel community. Other
economic activities, such as agriculture, were subsequently added in. A
genuine single market was eventually established for goods, persons,
services and capital, and a single currency was added in 1999. On 1 January
2002 the euro is to become a day-to-day reality for 300 million European
citizens.

The European Union has thus gradually come into being. In the beginning, it
was more of an economic and technical collaboration. Twenty years ago, with
the first direct elections to the European Parliament, the Community's
democratic legitimacy, which until then had lain with the Council alone, was
considerably strengthened. Over the last ten years, construction of a
political union has begun and cooperation been established on social policy,
employment, asylum, immigration, police, justice, foreign policy and a
common security and defence policy.

The European Union is a success story. For over half a century now, Europe
has been at peace. Along with North America and Japan, the Union forms one
of the three most prosperous parts of the world. As a result of mutual
solidarity and fair distribution of the benefits of economic development,
moreover, the standard of living in the Union's weaker regions has increased
enormously and they have made good much of the disadvantage they were at.

Fifty years on, however, the Union stands at a crossroads, a defining moment
in its existence. The unification of Europe is near. The Union is about to
expand to bring in more than ten new Member States, predominantly Central
and Eastern European, thereby finally closing one of the darkest chapters in
European history: the Second World War and the ensuing artificial division
of Europe. At long last, Europe is on its way to becoming one big family,
without bloodshed, a real transformation clearly calling for a different
approach from fifty years ago, when six countries first took the lead.

The democratic challenge facing Europe

At the same time, the Union faces twin challenges, one within and the other
beyond its borders.

Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its
citizens. Citizens undoubtedly support the Union's broad aims, but they do
not always see a connection between those goals and the Union's everyday
action. They want the European institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid
and, above all, more efficient and open. Many also feel that the Union
should involve itself more with their particular concerns, instead of
intervening, in every detail, in matters by their nature better left to
Member States' and regions' elected representatives. This is even perceived
by some as a threat to their identity. More importantly, however, they feel
that deals are all too often cut out of their sight and they want better
democratic scrutiny.

Europe's new role in a globalised world

Beyond its borders, in turn, the European Union is confronted with a
fast﷓changing, globalised world. Following the fall of the Berlin
Wall, it looked briefly as though we would for a long while be living in a
stable world order, free from conflict, founded upon human rights. Just a
few years later, however, there is no such certainty. The eleventh of
September has brought a rude awakening. The opposing forces have not gone
away: religious fanaticism, ethnic nationalism, racism and terrorism are on
the increase, and regional conflicts, poverty and underdevelopment still
provide a constant seedbed for them.

What is Europe's role in this changed world? Does Europe not, now that is
finally unified, have a leading role to play in a new world order, that of a
power able both to play a stabilising role worldwide and to point the way
ahead for many countries and peoples? Europe as the continent of humane
values, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the French Revolution and the
fall of the Berlin Wall; the continent of liberty, solidarity and above all
diversity, meaning respect for others' languages, cultures and traditions.
The European Union's one boundary is democracy and human rights. The Union
is open only to countries which uphold basic values such as free elections,
respect for minorities and respect for the rule of law.

Now that the Cold War is over and we are living in a globalised, yet also
highly fragmented world, Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in
the governance of globalisation. The role it has to play is that of a power
resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror and all fanaticism,
but which also does not turn a blind eye to the world's heartrending
injustices. In short, a power wanting to change the course of world affairs
in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the
poorest. A power seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in
other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development.

The expectations of Europe's citizens

The image of a democratic and globally engaged Europe admirably matches
citizens' wishes. There have been frequent public calls for a greater EU
role in justice and security, action against cross﷓border crime,
control of migration flows and reception of asylum seekers and refugees from
far﷓flung war zones. Citizens also want results in the fields of
employment and combating poverty and social exclusion, as well as in the
field of economic and social cohesion. They want a common approach on
environmental pollution, climate change and food safety, in short, all
transnational issues which they instinctively sense can only be tackled by
working together. Just as they also want to see Europe more involved in
foreign affairs, security and defence, in other words, greater and better
coordinated action to deal with trouble spots in and around Europe and in
the rest of the world.

At the same time, citizens also feel that the Union is behaving too
bureaucratically in numerous other areas. In coordinating the economic,
financial and fiscal environment, the basic issue should continue to be
proper operation of the internal market and the single currency, without
this jeopardising Member States' individuality. National and regional
differences frequently stem from history or tradition. They can be
enriching. In other words, what citizens understand by "good governance" is
opening up fresh opportunities, not imposing further red tape. What they
expect is more results, better responses to practical issues and not a
European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every
nook and cranny of life.

In short, citizens are calling for a clear, open, effective, democratically
controlled Community approach, developing a Europe which points the way
ahead for the world. An approach that provides concrete results in terms of
more jobs, better quality of life, less crime, decent education and better
health care. There can be no doubt that this will require Europe to undergo
renewal and reform.

II. CHALLENGES AND REFORMS IN A RENEWED UNION

The Union needs to become more democratic, more transparent and more
efficient. It also has to resolve three basic challenges: how to bring
citizens, and primarily the young, closer to the European design and the
European institutions, how to organise politics and the European political
area in an enlarged Union and how to develop the Union into a stabilising
factor and a model in the new, multipolar world. In order to address them a
number of specific questions need to be put.

A better division and definition of competence in the European Union

Citizens often hold expectations of the European Union that are not always
fulfilled. And vice versa - they sometimes have the impression that the
Union takes on too much in areas where its involvement is not always
essential. Thus the important thing is to clarify, simplify and adjust the
division of competence between the Union and the Member States in the light
of the new challenges facing the Union. This can lead both to restoring
tasks to the Member States and to assigning new missions to the Union, or to
the extension of existing powers, while constantly bearing in mind the
equality of the Member States and their mutual solidarity.

A first series of questions that needs to be put concerns how the division
of competence can be made more transparent. Can we thus make a clearer
distinction between three types of competence: the exclusive competence of
the Union, the competence of the Member States and the shared competence of
the Union and the Member States? At what level is competence exercised in
the most efficient way? How is the principle of subsidiarity to be applied
here? And should we not make it clear that any powers not assigned by the
Treaties to the Union fall within the exclusive sphere of competence of the
Member States? And what would be the consequences of this?

The next series of questions should aim, within this new framework and while
respecting the "acquis communautaire", to determine whether there needs to
be any reorganisation of competence. How can citizens' expectations be taken
as a guide here? What missions would this produce for the Union? And, vice
versa, what tasks could better be left to the Member States? What amendments
should be made to the Treaty on the various policies? How, for example,
should a more coherent common foreign policy and defence policy be
developed? Should the Petersberg tasks be updated? Do we want to adopt a
more integrated approach to police and criminal law cooperation? How can
economic-policy coordination be stepped up? How can we intensify cooperation
in the field of social inclusion, the environment, health and food safety?
But then, should not the day-to-day administration and implementation of the
Union's policy be left more emphatically to the Member States and, where
their constitutions so provide, to the regions? Should they not be provided
with guarantees that their spheres of competence will not be affected?

Lastly, there is the question of how to ensure that a redefined division of
competence does not lead to a creeping expansion of the competence of the
Union or to encroachment upon the exclusive areas of competence of the
Member States and, where there is provision for this, regions. How are we to
ensure at the same time that the European dynamic does not come to a halt?
In the future as well the Union must continue to be able to react to fresh
challenges and developments and must be able to explore new policy areas.
Should Articles 95 and 308 of the Treaty be reviewed for this purpose in the
light of the "acquis jurisprudentiel"?

Simplification of the Union's instruments

Who does what is not the only important question; the nature of the Union's
action and what instruments it should use are equally important. Successive
amendments to the Treaty have on each occasion resulted in a proliferation
of instruments, and directives have gradually evolved towards more and more
detailed legislation. The key question is therefore whether the Union's
various instruments should not be better defined and whether their number
should not be reduced.

In other words, should a distinction be introduced between legislative and
executive measures? Should the number of legislative instruments be reduced:
directly applicable rules, framework legislation and non-enforceable
instruments (opinions, recommendations, open coordination)? Is it or is it
not desirable to have more frequent recourse to framework legislation, which
affords the Member States more room for manoeuvre in achieving policy
objectives? For which areas of competence are open coordination and mutual
recognition the most appropriate instruments? Is the principle of
proportionality to remain the point of departure?

More democracy, transparency and efficiency in the European Union

The European Union derives its legitimacy from the democratic values it
projects, the aims it pursues and the powers and instruments it possesses.
However, the European project also derives its legitimacy from democratic,
transparent and efficient institutions. The national parliaments also
contribute towards the legitimacy of the European project. The declaration
on the future of the Union, annexed to the Treaty of Nice, stressed the need
to examine their role in European integration. More generally, the question
arises as to what initiatives we can take to develop a European public area.

The first question is thus how we can increase the democratic legitimacy and
transparency of the present institutions, a question which is valid for the
three institutions.

How can the authority and efficiency of the European Commission be enhanced?
How should the President of the Commission be appointed: by the European
Council, by the European Parliament or should he be directly elected by the
citizens? Should the role of the European Parliament be strengthened? Should
we extend the right of co﷓decision or not? Should the way in which we
elect the members of the European Parliament be reviewed? Should a European
electoral constituency be created, or should constituencies continue to be
determined nationally? Can the two systems be combined? Should the role of
the Council be strengthened? Should the Council act in the same manner in
its legislative and its executive capacities? With a view to greater
transparency, should the meetings of the Council, at least in its
legislative capacity, be public? Should citizens have more access to Council
documents? How, finally, should the balance and reciprocal control between
the institutions be ensured?

A second question, which also relates to democratic legitimacy, involves the
role of national parliaments. Should they be represented in a new
institution, alongside the Council and the European Parliament? Should they
have a role in areas of European action in which the European Parliament has
no competence? Should they focus on the division of competence between Union
and Member States, for example through preliminary checking of compliance
with the principle of subsidiarity?

The third question concerns how we can improve the efficiency of
decision-making and the workings of the institutions in a Union of some
thirty Member States. How could the Union set its objectives and priorities
more effectively and ensure better implementation? Is there a need for more
decisions by a qualified majority? How is the co-decision procedure between
the Council and the European Parliament to be simplified and speeded up?
What of the six﷓monthly rotation of the Presidency of the Union? What
is the future role of the European Parliament? What of the future role and
structure of the various Council formations? How should the coherence of
European foreign policy be enhanced? How is synergy between the High
Representative and the competent Commissioner to be reinforced? Should the
external representation of the Union in international fora be extended
further?

Towards a Constitution for European citizens

The European Union currently has four Treaties. The objectives, powers and
policy instruments of the Union are currently spread across those Treaties.
If we are to have greater transparency, simplification is essential.

Four sets of questions arise in this connection. The first concerns
simplifying the existing Treaties without changing their content. Should the
distinction between the Union and the Communities be reviewed? What of the
division into three pillars?

Questions then arise as to the possible reorganisation of the Treaties.
Should a distinction be made between a basic treaty and the other treaty
provisions? Should this distinction involve separating the texts? Could this
lead to a distinction between the amendment and ratification procedures for
the basic treaty and for the other treaty provisions?

Thought would also have to be given to whether the Charter of Fundamental
Rights should be included in the basic treaty and to whether the European
Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The question ultimately arises as to whether this simplification and
reorganisation might not lead in the long run to the adoption of a
constitutional text in the Union. What might the basic features of such a
constitution be? The values which the Union cherishes, the fundamental
rights and obligations of its citizens, the relationship between Member
States in the Union?

III. CONVENING OF A CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

In order to pave the way for the next Intergovernmental Conference as
broadly and openly as possible, the European Council has decided to convene
a Convention composed of the main parties involved in the debate on the
future of the Union. In the light of the foregoing, it will be the task of
that Convention to consider the key issues arising for the Union's future
development and try to identify the various possible responses.

The European Council has appointed Mr V. Giscard d'Estaing as Chairman of
the Convention and Mr G. Amato and Mr J.L. Dehaene as Vice-Chairmen.

In addition to its Chairman and Vice-Chairmen, the Convention will be
composed of 15 representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the
Member States (one from each Member State), 30 members of national
parliaments (two from each Member State), 16 members of the European
Parliament and two Commission representatives. The accession candidate
countries will be fully involved in the Convention's proceedings. They will
be represented in the same way as the current Member States (one government
representative and two national parliament members) and will be able to take
part in the proceedings without, however, being able to prevent any
consensus which may emerge among the Member States.

The members of the Convention may only be replaced by alternate members if
they are not present. The alternate members will be designated in the same
way as full members.

The Praesidium of the Convention will be composed of the Convention Chairman
and Vice﷓Chairmen and nine members drawn from the Convention (the
representatives of all the governments holding the Council Presidency during
the Convention, two national parliament representatives, two European
Parliament representatives and two Commission representatives).

Three representatives of the Economic and Social Committee with three
representatives of the European social partners; from the Committee of the
Regions: six representatives (to be appointed by the Committee of the
Regions from the regions, cities and regions with legislative powers), and
the European Ombudsman will be invited to attend as observers. The
Presidents of the Court of Justice and of the Court of Auditors may be
invited by the Praesidium to address the Convention.

Length of proceedings

The Convention will hold its inaugural meeting on 1 March 2002, when it will
appoint its Praesidium and adopt its rules of procedure. Proceedings will be
completed after a year, that is to say in time for the Chairman of the
Convention to present its outcome to the European Council.

The Chairman will pave the way for the opening of the Convention's
proceedings by drawing conclusions from the public debate. The Praesidium
will serve to lend impetus and will provide the Convention with an initial
working basis.

The Praesidium may consult Commission officials and experts of its choice on
any technical aspect
which it sees fit to look into. It may set up ad hoc working parties.

The Council will be kept informed of the progress of the Convention's
proceedings. The Convention Chairman will give an oral progress report at
each European Council meeting, thus enabling Heads of State or Government to
give their views at the same time.

The Convention will meet in Brussels. The Convention's discussions and all
official documents will be in the public domain. The Convention will work in
the Union's eleven working languages.

The Convention will consider the various issues. It will draw up a final
document which may comprise either different options, indicating the degree
of support which they received, or recommendations if consensus is achieved.

Together with the outcome of national debates on the future of the Union,
the final document will provide a starting point for discussions in the
Intergovernmental Conference, which will take the ultimate decisions.

In order for the debate to be broadly based and involve all citizens, a
Forum will be opened for organisations representing civil society (the
social partners, the business world, non-governmental organisations,
academia, etc.). It will take the form of a structured network of
organisations receiving regular information on the Convention's proceedings.
Their contributions will serve as input into the debate. Such organisations
may be heard or consulted on specific topics in accordance with arrangements
to be established by the Praesidium.

The Praesidium will be assisted by a Convention Secretariat, to be provided
by the General Secretariat of the Council, which may incorporate Commission
and European Parliament experts.

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)