Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-228)
MR JO
LEINEN, MR
RICHARD CORBETT,
MR ANDREW
DUFF, MR
ALEXANDER STUBB
AND MR
GYÖRGY SCHÖPFLIN
25 JANUARY 2005
Q220 Angus Robertson: It is democracy.
Mr Corbett: To the question: do
we all agree about the referendum being a good or a bad thing?
The European Parliament has not said anything on this either way.
It is up to each Member State to decide what is best in the view
of its own Constitution and its own traditions. We are not going
to tell Member States how best to ratify. Similarly, we have not
taken a position on what should happen if a Member State does
not ratify, we were speculating as individuals and there are lots
of scenarios that one can imagine but I will not try to repeat
them, suffice to say that the UK would be in a rather weak negotiating
position whatever solution was chosen. On multi-level democracy,
I think we all agree that powers, responsibilities, competences
in our job should be exercised at the smallest level possible,
the European institutions are inevitably more distant from people
than national or local institutions and that is an argument not
to do things at European level if you can perfectly well deal
with them at national and local level. But in that there are things
which we want to and benefit from addressing jointly with our
neighbouring countries at EU level, we want to make that level
operate in as democratic a way as possible. I think if you compare
the EU to any other international structure—the World Bank,
the IMF, the OECD, the WTO, you name it—it is the most democratic
structure that we have managed to build above the level of the
nation state. With the Constitution no legislation can be enacted
without the double scrutiny of both the Council and the European
Parliament, the elected governments of the Member States and the
directly elected MEPs, a double quality control, if you like,
a double check and balance, now we have a number of Czechs and
Slovaks in the Union we need checks and balances as well! That
is something we should be quite proud of. As to the question of
what level do you address an issue, we have an onus after all.
The onus is that the EU can only deal with the subject if it is
in the treaty in the first place, if it has competence, and even
then decisions involve the elected Member States' governments
in the Council who need a pretty heavy majority to agree anything
and even then they are legally obliged to respect the principle
of subsidiarity and proportionality. There are a lot of safeguards
against over-centralisation and keeping things at the lowest level
of government but if and when we do decide to do things at the
European level, we have started to build a pretty democratic structure
that we should be proud of.
Mr Duff: To return to Sandra Osborne's
question about democratic malaise, you were talking about, of
course, it not exclusively to the European Parliament. In Britain
turn-out shot up in this last year by 14% in the East of England,
which I have the privilege of representing. It is not all my own
work. I think the answer to your question concerns the quality
of policy which flows out of the EU. Certainly we were driven
in the convention to question why were we doing this difficult
thing and it was because we wanted to create a situation where
policy outcomes could be more effective in their formulation or
consultative, more representative of the common interest, but
also more efficient in their implementation. There are a huge
number of reforms which have been incorporated which will do that.
The primary virtue of the Constitution is that it strengthens
the capacity of the EU to act effectively abroad and at home.
It will permit us to stand on our own two feet in world affairs
and, without opening up a whole debate about foreign and security
policy, I think that will be very, very popular with the British
people. Although I am opposed to plebiscites in principle on these
matters, certainly I, and my party, will fight extremely hard
to see that we have a positive outcome and we will be arguing
on these grounds.
Mr Stubb: Two quick points. One
is a direct answer to Mr Cash's question on democracy. I firmly
believe that you should have democracy on a European, national
and regional level. Your direct question was what if someone who
has elected a national representative is displeased by a piece
of legislation which comes from the European level. Well, in the
Constitution you have an answer to that. We have an early warning
system whereby national parliaments can lift up a yellow card
and say "As a matter of fact, Europe has gone or the Commission
has gone beyond its premises, beyond the principle of subsidiarity".
In that sense, I think this treaty is a step forward. The second
point is we talked earlier about transparency and the possibility
for the public to hear what we are saying. I have been informed
by three text messages that the audio system on the net is not
working!
Q221 Jim Dobbin: Apologies for not being
here at the beginning but I think I have missed a very stimulating
debate here. My question is on the Union's values and objectives
in Articles I-2 and I-3 and some of those objectives are the bases
of the European Union's foundation. Can you just highlight one
or two of them? Also, I want you to say something about those
objectives which are not in the existing treaty and what impact
they might have had. Examples are the promotion of peace and the
well being of the Union's people, the promotion of social progress
and fair trade, those areas.
Mr Leinen: I would say they are
guidelines for Union policies. In a way the values are conditions
for membership. The applicant state should fulfil those values
and it is, let us say, the soul of Europe. The market is not really
bringing people together. From Poland to Portugal, what do the
people have in common? It is not the Common Market, let us say,
there is even competition, you could have a dispute of dislocation
from one country to the other. I think what brings us together
is this 2000 years of civilisation are certain values of how we
live together, how we operate together, how we have a solidarity
with each other, how we have freedom and democracy, you can read
them out. I think it is very nice that the first and second article
is giving an idea why we are doing the European Union, what is
the definition of it, and it is the soul of Europe. This is a
guidance of what we try to do as Europeans and I think it is a
wonderful thing to communicate with our people because they get
an idea right from the north of Scotland to the north of the Baltic
and from Greece up to the north of Sweden that we try to be a
Union.
Mr Duff: Certainly we trod over
these clauses with great attention and every phrase, every word
is there for a purpose. The order is important because they do
establish a certain hierarchy and, of course, it is important
to define with great accuracy our values and principles because
we can expel or suspend the membership rights of a state which
breaches them. I think that you are quite correct, if I may say
so, to bring our attention to these clauses. I would say they
are more than guidelines, with respect. I think they define absolutely
the purpose of Europe and they are not only of relevance to the
citizen and a code for the institutions, but of great interest
to those who are seeking to decide whether they wish to apply
to join us and there appear, despite our thoughts, to be many
other countries that wish to apply to join us.
Q222 Mr Connarty: I have one more question
myself which I find very intriguing. We are talking about a Constitution
that has not yet been ratified, yet there is a power under IV-443
to bring forward new provisions. I notice in paragraph 8 of the
European Parliament Resolution Statement it announces its intention
of using the new right of initiative conferred upon it by the
Constitution under Article IV-443 to propose improvements to the
Constitution. We are asking people to vote on ratifying something
which you have given notice you may wish to change, which does
seem to me to be a hostage to fortune.
Mr Corbett: That came into the
resolution by means of an amendment on the floor of the House
which was adopted by an overwhelming majority after discussions
among groups to meet the concerns of those who were saying: "Well,
once this Constitution is approved, it is set in stone and it
can never ever be changed again" which is not true, of course.
It has the same amendment procedure as the current treaties, the
current Constitution, if you like, in that it will need eventually
the ratification of every Member State, though the lead up to
such a change is improved, in our view, because there would normally
have to be a convention meeting in public which, as with the last
convention, will have representatives of every national parliament,
(both from the government and opposition parties), of every national
government and of European Parliament, deliberating in public
beforehand, before an IGC concludes the change. Interestingly,
the new Constitution also gives us in the European Parliament
the right to put forward proposals and suggestions to change,
and we wished to draw attention to that. Obviously, like the current
treaties, in due course there will be further occasions to sit
down and say: "Can we improve things here and can we improve
things there?" We are showing that as the democratically
elected parliament, the only directly elected institution amongst
the institutions, we will play a part in that and we wanted to
highlight that.
Mr Duff: If I could put on record
the fact that I and my Liberal group opposed the amendment that
you drew attention to. I think you are correct in implying that
it is premature to speculate on future provisions when we have
not even got the thing in place. Also, I think that we need to
imbue a sense of settlement that we are not always every five
years having IGCs and conventions, and picking the thing up by
the roots, that the thing where we have formulated very well,
and I hope will come into force, enjoys a certain durable quality.
But, of course, there are things in it which some of us do not
like and that was quite clear in the convention, which was a consensual
effort, we did not all agree with everything. Some examples: the
reform of the Council Presidency; the election of the Commission's
President is an example of something; the emergency break clauses.
There are several things, and if we had six hours of this interesting
afternoon then we could go into those but, frankly, I think that
is for five years, seven years, once we have the Constitution
in force, when we have practised it, when we see what it is like,
and we will have made mistakes. Economic, social and political
circumstances change requiring fresh formulations and procedures.
Q223 Angus Robertson: Can I reinforce
that point to an extent. If you draw a comparison with the situation
in the United States where the number of times their Constitution
has been amended is the type of thing where in a primary school
in America most kids can name the major amendments to the US Constitution.
Can I share a concern that if there is a view that there will
be a whole load of changes necessary in the short term, perhaps
one of the problems Europe is going through at the present time
is this constant sense of reinvention. The fact is the public,
which we all agree is disconnected from it, finds it extraordinarily
difficult to understand how it all works. Just when you get a
settlement to say: "This may or may not, because some of
us have some concerns about it" and "This is the settled
way forward which already one is talking about changing",
how on earth can the public keep up with this constant change?
Mr Leinen: You are completely
right, and I think that the first and the second part of this
new treaty is really a consolidated version of what we want and
it will have continuity for a longer time. Part of the new treaty
is Part 3, the acquis communautaire, so that is all the
policies, and you know yourself how policies can change. Five
years is 20 Internet generations. The world changes in five years'
time sometimes completely and then you find something written
down, accepted by ratification of all states, and it is no more
adjusted to reality. I would say if we need some more improvement
it will be on the Part 3, on the various policies that we have.
It will not be on Part 1, on our values, our objectives, on our
institutions, on the double majority
Q224 Angus Robertson: Competences?
Mr Leinen: Yes. There is everything
there. I cannot say much more on that.
Mr Corbett: It is a lasting settlement
on those points.
Mr Duff: We do not need any more
competences.
Mr Leinen: It is more the streamlining
of policies and decision making.
Q225 Mr Connarty: We seem to have an
echo of the same point that in these major items there is a sense
of settlement, I agree with Mr Robertson that would help the people
I represent and others that this Parliament represents to get
a sense of a grounding of what is the new European agreement.
Mr Corbett: I agree and I do not
want to give the impression, when I initially answered your question,
I thought there would be an avalanche of changes. I am just saying
in due course there might be small ones.
Mr Connarty: Can I thank you, Mr Cash,
for being very tolerant. We have got through a lot of business.
I know you have many issues you want to raise, and if you have
any others, please feel free.
Mr Cash: Just this one main point. In
Mens ancient law there is what I think is a remarkable
and very wise statement which is that justice is to be found in
the interstices of procedure. It might sound rather grandiose
to say that but in practice many of the things here one would
not disagree with because it states unequivocally a lot of things
which some people might regard as motherhood and apple pie. The
question is how does it work in practice? What are the mechanics
for the delivery of democracy? What are the mechanics for the
delivery of accountability? To what extent is subsidiarity, which
has never been implemented, capable of being put into effect in
a proper fashion? Frankly, on the question that Mr Stubb raised
about the cards, the question in a nutshell is this: if any one
Member State happens to take exception to something, he does not
have the right to be able to say no under this arrangement, it
is down to a proportion of national parliaments, not just one.
What I am trying to drive at in a nutshell is that although I
understand the objectives, and anybody who had any sense of constitutional
propriety or sense of history would know that the European Union
in itself grew out of the last world war and many people have
thought it ought to be perpetuated and to develop to the point
of this Constitution, the Bill of which is going to be published
tomorrow, the fact remains that ultimately the objection of some
of us is that it is not properly democratic and it is not intended
to be, it is not properly accountable and not intended to be,
and that is the fundamental objection. I could ask you for your
opinion about that but I thought that I would put that on the
record.
Q226 Mr Connarty: As the Chairman, I
do intend asking our witnesses to give us their opinion, if they
wish to give an opinion on that, because I do not think statements
should be hanging in our minutes like that as if it is somehow
given credibility.
Mr Stubb: A direct answer to Mr
Cash on two points. It depends completely on the issue and it
depends on the decision making procedure whether a Member State
indeed has the possibility to block the particular decision. Point
number two, if you look at the history of qualified majority voting,
the United Kingdom has always got in on top. It does not matter
what the issue, the UK has been in many cases, for example, champion
of the internal market where decisions are based on qualified
majority voting and it has always benefited the UK. Now, unfortunately,
the UK Government put down five or six red lines and unfortunately
got those five or six lines which remain in unanimity. I do hope
that the next time we change the treaty something will happen
but you cannot categorically, I believe, say that there is no
possibility to stop the decision in the EU, of course there is,
it just depends on the decision making procedure and the issue
at stake, but usually the UK wins the case anyway.
Mr Corbett: Mr Cash said that
the Constitution is not intended to be democratic, which I think
is an astonishing statement to make. That was much of the focus
of the whole debate about it, how to improve democratic accountability
at the EU level. You might say it is insufficient and, we can
all have our views on that, but to say that was not even the intention
is a remarkable statement, of course that was the intention. In
looking at it we have to say "How does it compare it to the
current Constitution, the current treaties, de facto the Constitution
of the EU as it is now? Does it improve things from a democratic
accountability point of view or not?" The answer can only
be "yes", maybe it could have improved them more but
the answer is "yes", it increases the role of double
scrutiny, as I said, at the Council and the European Parliament
and it improves the role of national parliaments. The yellow card,
frankly, I think is a minor part of that because that concerns
only subsidiarity and I think subsidiarity is very adequately
protected at the moment by the requirement for legislation to
have the approval of a very high majority of national ministers,
members of national governments accountable to their national
parliaments, in the Council. It will be very unusual to find a
Commission proposal which does not respect subsidiarity. Where
I think the real improvement is for national parliaments is in
receiving all the documents directly with sufficient time to help
shape your country's position before the minister goes off to
the Council and not hear about it afterwards. You have that period
to sit down and help shape your country's position before the
Council meets, that is the real improvement for national parliaments.
Mr Schöpflin: I thought Mr
Cash made a quite amazing assertion that the Constitution is not
democratic and not accountable. It is as if by implication he
is saying either he has a monopoly on the definitions of democracy
and accountability or maybe the United Kingdom does. It seems
to me that there are different ways of structuring democracy.
The United Kingdom is in many ways a very democratic country but
democracy exists, also, elsewhere. It is finding the different
discourses of democracy—I am sorry to use language like
that in this august place—and finding a compromise among
them which is in a sense what this Constitution is saying, that
the various different strands of democracy that we have built
in Europe produce something better than the sum total. If the
United Kingdom does not wish to be a part of that, well it is
a pity, but I think the United Kingdom does have a contribution
to make and certainly the proposition that less democracy, less
accountability, less transparency once you cross the 40 kilometres
to Calais, I find really rather bizarre, I am sorry.
Mr Duff: I agree strongly with
my colleagues, as you would expect. I would just like to ask Mr
Cash what he thinks of Article 45—
Q227 Mr Connarty: Let us not do that.
Mr Duff: —on the principle
of democratic equality, 46 on the principle of representative
democracy, 47 on the principle of participatory democracy. All
of these are brand new, they have not existed before in any previous
treaty. They are an unprecedented formulation of the profoundly
democratic character and parliamentary character of the EU.
Q228 Mr Connarty: Can I ask, Mr Leinen,
as the chairman of the committee, do you wish to say a few words
before we finish?
Mr Leinen: Yes. We thank you for
the questions and I hope this exchange of ideas has been constructive
and useful. We are dealing with these questions day by day. You
have heard from various countries the view on this new treaty.
A few months ago an American, Jeremy Rifkin, wrote a book about
the European Union and he gave it the title The European Dream.
It is amazing looking from the outside at the EU how much admiration
is given to the fact that 25 countries and 25 populations voluntarily
share sovereignty and do things together. It is admired around
the world more and more and therefore I would say our scepticism
is a little bit too narrow and should look more at what is achieved.
When the founding fathers had the idea of peace, okay, the young
generation may in the area of globalisation look for security
and jobs and quality of life, and I think together we are doing
better in the globalised world than everybody on their own. In
this sense, I think the Constitution brings us a step forward
and we welcome very much when the British people can find something
positive in this common effort. I thank you very much for inviting
us.
Mr Connarty: Can I thank you and recognise
the fact that we have here a delegation from Finland in the North
to Hungary in the South and East of the European Union to our
own Kingdom and Germany. In fact we have a delegation which comes
from the Internet age with someone who was born in the same year
as my son to a Member who was actually even born a decade before
I was. We have a broad interest and clearly a focused interest
also on the European Constitution. Before finishing, can I recognise
that we have received also a written submission from Brenden Barber,
General Secretary of the TUC, to our deliberations. In fact it
is very interesting to read how closely he focuses on the impact
of the Charter of Rights for the people he represents in the trade
unions of the United Kingdom. Can I thank everyone for their participation.
|
