16 Commission Opinion on the Inter-Governmental
Conference
| (24892)
12654/03
—
| Commission Opinion on the Conference of representatives of the Member States' Governments convened to revise the Treaties.
|
| Legal base | Article 48 EU |
| Document originated | 17 September 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 24 September 2003
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 7 October 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but relevant to debate on the Inter-Governmental Conference
|
Background
16.1 The Convention on the Future of Europe concluded its deliberations
in July 2003, and the complete text of its draft Constitutional
Treaty for the European Union was submitted to the Council in
that month. The Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), which was
launched by the Italian Presidency on 4 October 2003, aims to
negotiate a final agreement on all outstanding issues regarding
the Convention text. The new treaty is intended to replace the
treaties on which the European Union and European Community are
currently based (though not the Euratom Treaty).
The document
16.2 The document contains the Commission's Opinion on the Convention
text and on the approach the Commission thinks the IGC should
take in revising that text.
16.3 The Commission welcomes the Convention's proposal
in general terms and argues that the IGC should not "disturb
the overall balances built into the draft Constitution" and
should not "start rediscussing all the questions that the
Convention has already looked at in detail and on which it has
reached a consensus". The Commission expresses particular
satisfaction with the merging of the European Union and European
Community, combined with the conferring of a single legal personality
on the European Union and the abolition of the "pillar"
structure of the Union, and the incorporation of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights into the constitutional treaty. The Commission
also welcomes the simplification and clarification of the provisions
governing the Union's legal instruments, the extension of the
scope of the co-decision procedure, the re-definition and extension
of qualified majority voting and the enhanced arrangements for
monitoring compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality. Finally, the Commission endorses the extension
of "the Community method" to the present third pillar
(police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters), the creation
of the new office of an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs and provisions
for enhanced co-operation in foreign and security policy.
16.4 At the same time the Commission states that
the draft Constitution "is not a finished product".
The Commission's Opinion outlines those areas in which the IGC
should concentrate on improving, clarifying and
finalising the draft. First, the Commission argues that
improvements to the draft Constitution are still necessary
in the following respects:
- the composition of the Commission,
where it asserts that the Convention's proposals threaten to undermine
rather than increase both the legitimacy and effectiveness of
Commission action, and that this should be re-examined and modified
by the IGC on the basis of the principle of equality for all Member
States, but without re-opening other institutional themes;
- a further reduction of the unanimity requirement,
notably in relation to the principles governing financial co-operation
with third countries, accession to the European Convention on
Human Rights, taxation connected with the operation of the internal
market, committing fraud or tax evasion, and the establishment
of a European Public Prosecutors' Office;
- a lighter revision procedure (not involving ratification
by national parliaments) governing amendments to Part III of the
Constitution; and
- allowing for closer economic co-operation within
the euro zone.
16.5 The Commission's Opinion emphasises areas of
imprecise and ambiguous wording in the draft, which the IGC should
clarify. These concern, in particular, certain aspects of the
role of the new Presidency of the European Council and especially
the provisions governing the precise function and scope of the
Presidency of the different Council formations and the proposed
EU Minister for Foreign Affairs. In addition, the Commission
argues that certain more technical amendments have to be made
to the draft, especially Part III, to ensure consistency between
the Union's general objectives and more precise policies as well
as between the new or re-cast treaty provisions and those which
have been retained from previous treaties.
16.6 Finally, the Commission emphasises the need
to finalise the text with a view to ensuring consistency
with those other areas of primary law of the Union which it does
not repeal or replace. The Commission also points to the need
for close examination of the numerous protocols to previous treaties,
again to ensure consistency with the new Constitution in so far
as these protocols remain in force.
The Government's view
16.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 7 October 2003
the Minister for Europe (Mr Denis MacShane) emphasises both that
the Commission Communication has no legal force and that, irrespective
of the Commission's views, the Government has already set
out its own position and objectives for the IGC in its White Paper
entitled A Constitutional Treaty for the EU — the British
approach to the European Union Inter-Governmental Conference 2003.
The Minister writes as follows:
"There is no requirement for the Council to
act upon the Commission's Opinion. The Government's own position
on the Inter-Governmental Conference is set out in detail in the
White Paper which was published on 9 September (Cm 5934).
"Although we agree with some important points
made by the Communication — for example on the need for
clarity in the final text and the importance of ensuring legal
continuity — there are others with which we disagree. For
example, we believe that unanimity should be retained for all
changes to the Treaties".
Conclusion
16.8 We thank the Minister for his summary and
his helpful comments on the Commission's Communication. We note
that the Commission's Opinion has no legal force and simply states
the Commission's views on the Inter-Governmental Conference.
We also note that the Government has already published its own
position on the draft Constitution.
16.9 For these reasons we do not think it necessary
to comment in detail on the Commission's Opinion. However, on
the substance of the matters to be discussed in the Inter-Governmental
Conference, we recall the points we have made in our Reports on
the Convention's proposals on criminal justice, and on
The Convention on the future of Europe and the role of national
parliaments.[28]
16.10 We have no questions for the Minister on
the Commission's Opinion and are content to clear the document.
Nevertheless, we consider it relevant to any debate on the Inter-Governmental
Conference.
2 28 8 HC 63- xxvi- I and II (2002-03) (25 June 2003)
and HC 63- xxiv (2002-03) (5 June 2003). Back
| 
