IN THE CHAIR: Mr Dominic HANNIGAN T.D., Chairman of the Joint Committee on EuropeanUnion Affairs (Housesof the Oireachtas,Ireland).

AGENDA:

1. Welcome addresses and procedural issues

- Opening address by Mr Seán Barrett T.D., Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann- Opening of session by Mr Dominic Hannigan T.D., Chairman of the Oireachtas JointCommittee on European Union Affairs- Adoption of the agenda of the XLIX COSAC.- Presentation of the 19thBi-annual Report of COSAC.- Procedural issues.- Outcome of the informal meeting of EU Committee Chairs, Copenhagen, March 2013.- Outcome of the Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments, Nicosia, April 2013.

2. ‘Taking Stock and Looking to the Future’

Keynote speaker: An Taoiseach Mr Enda Kenny T.D., Prime Minister of Ireland.

3. ‘The Future of European Integration’

Keynote speakers: Mr Herman De Croo, Former Speaker of the Belgian House of Representatives,and Mr Brendan Halligan, Chairperson, Institute of International and European Affairs.

4. ‘Delivering on Development’

Panel: Dr Mo Ibrahim, Chairman, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, Ms Michèle Striffler, Vice-president ofthe Development Committee of the European Parliament and Mr Barry Andrews, Chief Executive,GOAL.

5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

- Debate on the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIX COSAC.

6. ‘A European Future for Young Citizens’

Keynote speaker: Mr Joe Costello, Minister of State. Interventions by three young Europeans: MsNevin Öztop (Turkey), Ms Rachel Creevy (Ireland) and Ms Marietta Herfort (Hungary).

7. ‘Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy – Maintaining Momentum’

Keynote speakers: Dr Valentin Inzko, High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Mr ErwanFouéré, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.

8. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIX COSAC

Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign and European Affairs of MalteseKamra tad-Deputati.

1.1. Opening address by Mr Seán BARRETT T.D., Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann

Mr BARRETT opened the meeting by saying that the XLIX COSAC plenary meeting is the finalin a series of eight inter-parliamentary conferences under the parliamentary dimension to the IrishPresidency of the Council of the European Union (EU). He noted that Ireland celebrated thefortieth anniversary of its membership of the EU in 2013 and that it was the seventh PresidencyIreland had held. Mr BARRETT underlined that, although the parliamentary dimension of thePresidency had evolved considerably over time and increased in importance, the question how toincrease Parliamentary control, in particular how to reinforce the role of national Parliaments, onEU affairs was still valid.Mr BARRETT said that parliamentarians of all 27 Member States (will be 28 from 1 July) shared acommon concern that public trust in politics and institutions had been eroded at both EU andnational levels in the face of the economic crisis. Mr BARRETT noted that the last few years hadbeen extremely difficult in terms of addressing some aspects of European governance, dealing withthe currency crisis, debt crisis, bank crisis and unemployment, particularly among young citizensof the Member States. The EU’s overall response to the crisis had been driven by increased inter-governmentalism which resounded with parliamentarians. A new framework of economicgovernance had been developed. The debate on the need for greater democratic accountability andlegitimacy was taking place at the EU level and in the Member States.Mr BARRETT emphasised that Parliaments, being close to citizens, clearly had a particularlyimportant role to play in establishing links between citizens and European decision-makers. Herecognised that Parliaments should have the fullest role possible in policy formation, decisionmaking and oversight processes. Distinct roles for national Parliaments and the EuropeanParliament were necessary.Mr BARRETT cautioned that the existing tools at the disposal of Parliaments were not trulyutilised and urged delegates to consider where improvements might be necessary. He suggestedthat national Parliaments should seek to have parliamentary time perhaps on a monthly basis forone or two days where EU matters would be discussed across the EU. Mr BARRETT pointed outthat communication is critical for the democratic process and called for more open communicationthrough media outlets, including, where possible, Parliamentary TV Channels, as well as throughthe use of the internet and social media, and for more open communication with citizens about thebenefits of the EU.Mr BARRETT concluded that economic stability could only be achieved with the understandingand support of national Parliaments and citizens.

1.2. Adoption of the agenda, procedural questions and miscellaneous matters

Mr HANNIGAN informed the participants that the agenda of the XLIX COSAC had beendiscussed at the Chairpersons meeting on 28 January. He presented the topics to be discussed,introduced the speakers and explained the order of the debates at the Plenary.Mr Francesco Enrico SPERONI, Vice-Chair of the Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint ParliamentaryAssembly of the European Parliament, expressed his concerns that a citizen of Turkey wouldparticipate in one of the debates at the Plenary as a "European" citizen. After a short discussion the

participants agreed that interventions by all three young Europeans should be approved. Theagenda was approved without amendments.Mr HANNIGAN asked Ms Libby KURIEN, Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat, tobriefly present the 19th Bi-annual Report. Ms KURIEN informed the meeting that the report,drafted to facilitate the exchange of information and to better inform the COSAC debate, containedfour chapters. Firstly, the report examined Genuine Economic and Monetary Union. The reportfound that the majority of Parliaments actively debated key EMU related documents, but they feltthat those documents did not adequately address the issue of democratic legitimacy. Ms KURIENpointed out that, on the European Semester 2013, the majority of Parliaments reported that theywere satisfied or partly satisfied with their degree of engagement in the economic governance ofthe EU and the European Semester. On EU Enlargement, the report found that monitoring reportsand annual progress reports were scrutinised and debated by around 60% of respondingParliaments. Half of the respondents discussed the Commission's Enlargement Strategy 2012-2013. Many Parliaments also engaged in a dialogue with political, official and civil societyrepresentatives in enlargement states. Finally the report examined the mobilisation ofinterparliamentary cooperation in relation to scrutiny of subsidiarity. A large number ofParliaments did not believe that the replies from the Commission to the reasoned opinions wereadequate responses.Mr HANNIGAN stated that the Presidential Troika of COSAC had discussed the financing of theCOSAC Secretariat and the position of Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat. Twenty-two letters of intent had already been received from Parliaments confirming their intentions tomaintain the current co-financing mechanism for the COSAC Secretariat for two years startingfrom 1 January 2014. The Parliaments which had not confirmed their intention were asked torenew their commitment. Mr HANNIGAN stated that the term in office of the Permanent Memberof the COSAC Secretariat would expire at the end of the year and the appointment of a newmember would take place during the L COSAC during the Lithuanian Presidency. MrHANNIGAN thanked Ms KURIEN, who would not be seeking the appointment for the secondterm, for her work as Permanent Member of the Secretariat.Mr HANNIGAN briefed the Plenary on the outcome of the informal meeting of the EU CommitteeChairs in Copenhagen in March 2013. The participants in Copenhagen considered that nationalParliaments play a special role in linking citizens and EU decision-making and noted that therewas a lack of proposals on how their role could be strengthened in the evolving economicgovernance of the EU. The participants discussed the tools available to strengthen the role ofnational Parliaments including through greater involvement in the European Semester, and sharedviews on how the conference under Article 13 might operate. The participants also discussed howthe political dialogue with the Commission could be strengthened, how cluster of Parliaments forinformation cooperation on specific topics might be organised, and how cooperation throughCOSAC could be improved.Mr Averof NEOFYTOU, Chairperson of the House Standing Committee on Foreign and EuropeanAffairs of CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon,spoke on the outcome of the Conference of Speakers ofthe EU Parliaments in Nicosia on April 2013. With reference to article 13 of the Treaty onStability, Coordination and Governance, the Speakers emphasised the importance of thedemocratic accountability within the context of the European Semester, as well as the need tostrengthen the legitimacy and accountability with regard to economic governance and decided toset up an interparliamentary conference. The conference would be held twice a year and would becoordinated with the European Semester. They also agreed that the democratic accountability and

legitimacy in the decision making process should be strengthened at the EU level with moreparticipation by citizens. The best use of audiovisual tools should be ensured. The final session ofthe discussion dealt with the role of Parliaments with regard to social cohesion at times ofausterity. It was agreed to develop the framework for economic and social reforms recognising theprocess of the European Semester and this could contribute to improving policy coordination atEU level.A short exchange of views followed on the new interparliamentary Article 13 conference. Thedelegates agreed that such an initiative is highly valued and could lead to finding a commonapproach of national Parliaments to very important issues. Mr Gediminas KIRKILAS, Chairpersonof the Committee on European Affairs of the LithuanianSeimas,stated that theSeimasintended toorganise the inaugural session of the newly established conference in Vilnius on 16-18 October2013 entitled the Interparliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance in the EUand the debate could focus on the future of the Economic and Monetary Union and the role ofParliaments in ensuring the democratic accountability and legitimacy of the process.

2. ‘Taking Stock and Looking to the Future’

Keynote speaker: An Taoiseach Mr Enda Kenny T.D., Prime Minister of Ireland.The Taoiseach welcomed COSAC back to Ireland for the fourth time since its foundation and at atime when Ireland is celebrating 40 years of EU membership and its seventh EU Presidency. Henoted that the issues of the perceived democratic deficit and of subsidiarity were as relevant todayas they were when COSAC met in Ireland almost 25 years ago. He praised the input of COSAC toprevious Treaties noting that each of these key institutional steps brought progress in terms ofdemocratic legitimacy and accountability, including enhanced roles for national Parliaments andthat each of those steps brought the European Project to a new stage in its development. The IrishPresidency was also working hard in support of President Van Rompuy and the European Councilin developing the next steps for EMU.He shared the progress made by the Presidency so far including the banking union decisions withbetter supervision and stronger capital requirements and with limits on bankers bonuses. He furthernoted that greater stability is being secured through better co-ordination of national budgets so thatthey too are sustainable and targeted at growth and jobs (i.e. the Two pack). In terms of jobs andgrowth, the 2014-2020 Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF), the EU’s biggest investmenttool, was agreed by EU Heads of State and Government. The Presidency was working with theEuropean Parliament to ensure that €960 billion could be released to fund investment and growthacross areas relating to cohesion, research, education and food production. A special fund of €6billion had been agreed to combat youth unemployment and a range of measures have beenadvanced to support small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and to boost Europe’s digitalsector. There have been historic steps forward in a number of bilateral trade negotiations whichcould boost growth and create jobs in Europe: the EU-Japan negotiations have been launched; theEU-Canada negotiations continue and a negotiating mandate for the EU-US Trade and Investmentpartnership has been secured. He noted that an EU-US agreement alone could mean annualbenefits of up to €150 billion for the EU and US economies. The Common Agricultural Policy and"Erasmus for All" were also agreed. Beyond the Union’s borders, he stated that work continued interms of enlargement and great progress was recorded on a post-2015 global developmentframework, while direct action has been taken on a number of fronts, including a resumption of aidto Mali.

The Taoiseach concluded by stating that COSAC had an important contribution to make on thefundamental question of democratic legitimacy and accountability. He referred to the EuropeanCouncil's recognition that stronger economic governance arrangements need to be supported bystronger democratic legitimacy and clearer public accountability. He reminded members that earlyin the Irish Presidency, Ministers for European Affairs discussed this issue in Dublin and that theystrongly supported greater efforts to strengthen the link between citizens and decisions taken atEuropean level and they clearly recognised the need to respect the role of national Parliaments butthat concrete steps were now needed to deliver this outcome.In the follow up questions, 17 members took the floor. Mr Jožef HORVAT (SlovenianDržavniZbor)asked if the banking union was going in the right direction, as it appeared that private capitalwas funding bank restructuring costs and Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK (HungarianOrszággyűlés)arguedfor the inclusion of non-eurozone Member States in the decisions on the creation of the bankingunion.Mr Ľuboš BLAHA,(SlovakianNarodna rada)and Mr Epameinondas MARIAS (GreekVouli ton Ellinon)raised issues concerning the value of the continued use of austerity policies anddealing with the troika.The Taoiseach noted that with the agreement on banking union Member States would have thetools to avoid what had happened in Ireland where the state had taken on €64 billion in privatedebt and that he agreed with the involvement of non-eurozone Member States with these decisions.He did not believe that a Member State could tax its way to prosperity and that there must bebalance in the use of austerity with fiscal discipline, matched by investment. On dealing with theTroika, he noted that based on trust and a good relationship which had developed changes tocertain elements of the Memorandum of Understanding had been allowed. He gave the example ofIreland where funds from the sale of state assets were used for state investment and not exclusivelyfor debt reduction.Ms Athina KYRIAKIDOU (CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon)asked the Taoiseach about his visionof solidarity in the EU; Mr Carlo CASINI (European Parliament) stated that the next Europeanelections in 2014 would have significant impact on the future of Europe and that in the MFFnegotiations, the EP would be seeking a review clause, greater flexibility and more autonomousown resources funding for the budget. Ms Christiane VIENNE (BelgianChambre desreprésentants)asked how the role of European and national Parliament members could bestrengthened in budget negotiations; Mr Diego LÓPEZ (SpanishCortes Generales)asked if theERASMUS programme should be extended and if €6 billion was enough funding for youthemployment; Mr Peter FRIEDRICH (GermanBundesrat)suggested that common rules for therevenue side of national budgets should be put into place and asked about tax harmonisation; MrRubén MORENO (SpanishCortes Generales)said that the restoration of normal lending to thebusiness sector was of great importance as companies in the same Union had different levels ofaccess to funding currently; Mr Gunther KRICHBAUM (GermanBundestag)asked what an EU-US trade agreement would mean for Ireland and asked how he viewed the current situation inTurkey and finally,Mr Mehmet Sayim TEKELIOĞLU(TurkishBüyük Millet Meclisi)welcomedthe opening of certain Chapters in their accession talks.The Taoiseach replied in general terms that the funding in the MFF was never enough but it was agood start and that the more important aspect was to move quickly to implementing it. Ireland hadalways supported the review/revision clause in the negotiations; that the history of Irish progresssince joining the EU was a measure of solidarity in itself as Ireland had been transformed by itsmembership; as for the €6 billion funding, he suggested that it is insufficient but better thannothing and the key message was to have programmes ready and in place to spend the funding

effectively; he confirmed that at the G8 talks while tax fraud and evasion were on the agendaharmonisation was not and that the European Council was moving to agree on the new tax code forsharing information; on funding Ireland has worked hard on the enhanced cooperation procedurefor Financial Transaction Tax and finally that accession for Turkey would be a long process butthat membership would be a force for stabilisation itself.

3. ‘The Future of European Integration’

Keynote speakers: Mrs Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission, Commissioner forJustice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship (via a recorded speech), Mr Herman De Croo, FormerSpeaker of the BelgianChambre des représentants,and Mr Brendan Halligan, Chairperson,Institute of International and European Affairs.The Vice-President of the Commission, Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights andCitizenship, Mrs Viviane REDING, addressed the plenary in a recorded speech. She emphasisedthat Europe is at a defining moment where further decisions must be taken in the context of aEuropean debate about democracy, legitimacy and the future of Europe. In this regard, sheunderlined the reinforced role of national Parliaments and the European Parliament, as providedfor in the Treaty of Lisbon.The Vice-President supported the view that the term 'United States of Europe' reflected better theaim towards a federal entity in the context of European history, values and unique diversity of theEuropean continent. She continued by referring to the European Year of Citizens 2013, which,according to her, is a unique opportunity to have a debate with citizens on different visions for thefuture of Europe. In this context, she encouraged the Chairs of the European Affairs Committees ofnational Parliaments to hold debates on European matters with the citizens in their countries.Mr Herman DE CROO, former Speaker of the BelgianChambre des représentants.Mr DE CROOcongratulated the Irish Presidency for the way the COSAC meeting was organised, expressing hissatisfaction for the refreshed format of the meeting. He started his speech by giving three essentialfigures. For 8% of global population, he said, Europe represented 25% of global wealth and hadmanaged to spend 50% of global social expenditure. He reminded the plenary that, having these inmind, Europe had the best established health care system and had succeeded in convincing itscitizens about democracy, which has led to prosperity. Europe constituted the most significantcommercial block. Despite this, Europe was suffering from a complex and was looking for ascapegoat to exonerate all responsibility for what was happening in Europe. However, he was aEuro-optimist. Europe, according to him, had gone through two major phases following two warsafter which it re-established peace and prosperity. What is more, it had to compete with countrieslike China, India, Brazil, and deal with its difficult relations with Russia, while it had, forideological reasons, effected two enlargements. The first one of these was to avoid the Europeancivil war and the second one to reintegrate those who have had their freedom taken away fordecades under the Soviet regime.In this light, politicians had to undertake new responsibilities taking into account the need for anenergy policy, research, intelligence, education and the power to negotiate. At the same time,politicians needed to tackle unemployment, poverty and misery which was the price of ourcivilisation, which includes the humanism, freedoms and social protection. Although struck by thedetailed and administrative nature of the work on which the EU is over-focusing, Mr DE CROOremained optimistic about the future of the EU.

Mr Brendan HALLIGAN, Chairman of the Institute of International and European Affairs. MrHALLIGAN started his speech by explaining the origins of the Institute. The Institute wasestablished in the light of the necessity to hold referenda in Ireland on European Treaties. Its aim,as he explained, was to facilitate informed debate in Ireland on membership of the EU byproviding analysis of European developments and by assessing the implications of proposedchanges to the Treaties.The Institute sees Europe as a process and regards the rapprochement between France andGermany as the rationale and basis for the EU. The evolution of the future of European integration,according to Mr HALLIGAN, could be predicted in accordance with three vectors: an enlargingmembership, an expanding agenda and a deepening interdependence. Deepening the integrationprocess, he added, required changes in the institutional architecture of the EU, which had becomemore complicated by the emergence of the eurozone.For the future he identified it as a problemwhere a Member State had the economic capacity to act if it wishes but the political will to do so wasabsent. In this case, the Member States were divided into two, or more, camps for an unknown periodof time ahead. The euro, would be the most recent example of not only differences in economiccapacity but also in political will.In describing the future of European integration, Mr HALLIGANreferred to two possible scenarios. One scenario would be that the eurozone would become thedefactocore of the EU endowed with its own institutions and decision-making procedures fromwhich Britain, Sweden and Denmark would be excluded. Another scenario would be based on therole of Europe in the world, where the integration process would have to take into considerationnew responsibilities, including global governance centered around climate change, internationalfinance and trade.In addressing the democratic deficit in the European integration process, the speaker proposedcloser involvement of national Parliaments and the creation of a European Senate composed solelyof members of national Parliaments.Mr William CASH, Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee of the UKHouse of Commonswas invited to respond first to the three presentations above. Mr CASH explained that he wouldfocus on the root of the problem as seen in the UK. In this context, he spoke of what he regarded as'inherent contradiction' at the core of the political union of the EU. On the one hand, he said, weheard much about citizenship, and yet there was a crisis of trust, as seen from the results of theEurobarometer. The Treaties were advocating more and more integration and yet there was nogenuine democracy. In this regard, he made reference to the impending crisis reflected in the UKadvocating for a referendum. He explained that the UK was asking for a referendum because of adisconnection between the people and the EU and a lack of consistency with that expressed ingeneral elections. He identified a transfer of sovereignty at the expense of national Parliamentswhich were supposed to be at the heart of the discussion. Identifying a complete contradictionwithin the framework of the economic and political process, he believed that the UK, increasinglydissatisfied, would never join the Euro and would inevitably be in a second tier. He referred to ablack hole where riots, unemployment, lack of money and no consideration on small and mediumenterprises were evidenced. According to him, unless the internal contradiction was solved, thepolitical, democratic and economic problems would persist and the UK would have a say in areferendum.In the debate which followed, 26 speakers took the floor. A number of speakers focused on thecrisis in Europe underlining the need for more Europe. Mr Michele BORDO (ItalianCamera deiDeputati)stressed this need referring to a lack of proper instruments to tackle the problems and tothe need for action in different policy areas like energy, climate, cross border crime, migration and

a common foreign and security policy to respond to the crisis. He went on to say that the EUneeded to go beyond national egoism and hegemony. Mr Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS(LithuanianSeimas)referred to the need to come up with new ideas, projects and vision. Referring to closerEU-NATO relations and new security strategy, he called for Europe to take more responsibilityand proposed the introduction of an action plan, a new Marshall plan.A number of speakers made specific reference to the importance of not only an economicmonetary union, but also a social union. In this regard, Ms Emer COSTELLO (EuropeanParliament) underlined the need of a social dimension to the economic monetary union towardstackling youth unemployment, mentioning the need to have equally binding targets on the issue.Ms Anna FOTYGA (PolishSejm)refused the idea of a two-speed Europe and spoke in favour ofsolidarity and inclusiveness. Mr Stefan SCHENNACH (AustrianBundesrat)supported the view ofa social union and harmonisation on tax dumping and the financial transaction tax. He spoke ofcounter-productive austerity measures and the need to combat youth unemployment. MrEpameinondas MARIAS (GreekVouli ton Ellinon)said that the EU, focused on neo-liberalismand austerity, was plagued by unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. He accused the Troikafor imposing memoranda and for taking the place of governments and national Parliaments,undermining democracy, in countries like Greece, Ireland and Cyprus. Mr Rubén MORENO(SpanishCortes Generales)said that, if more legitimacy was desired, integration would be crucialas the only response to globalisation. The best way to reconcile citizens with Europe was to createwealth and employment for the citizens. Mr Edgar MAYER (AustrianBundesrat),stressing theneed to make visible progress on tackling unemployment, warned against the risk ofrenationalisation, as the euro was seen as the cause of the problem rather than the solution.Lord Timothy BOSWELL (UKHouse of Lords)informed the participants of the launch by theSelect Committee on the European Union of the House of Lords of an inquiry into the role ofnational Parliaments in the EU. He invited other Parliaments to submit their views in writing,adding that the Committee would be delighted to collaborate with other Parliaments consideringsimilar action. He further focused on two points. Firstly, he expressed the view that there was nofuture in a self-defeating dispute between the European Parliament and national Parliaments, asboth were needed in this project. Secondly, he pointed out that a change of culture was needed fora real dialogue between the Council, the Commission, national governments, the EuropeanCouncil, the European Parliament and national Parliaments. On the role of national Parliaments,Mr Fidias SARIKAS (CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon)underlined their role in contributing to thedialogue, exchanging views and bridging gaps.A number of speakers explicitly mentioned the existing lack of confidence and trust towards theEU amongst citizens (e.g. Mr Alberto COSTA, PortugueseAssembleia da Republicaand MrDiego LOPEZ, SpanishCortes Generales).According to Mr SARIKAS and Ms Elena FATTORI(ItalianSenato della Repubblica)citizens should be put at the heart of the discussion on Europeanintegration. Mr MARTINEZ MARTÍNEZ (European Parliament) said that, in a globalised society,returning to nationalisation would render Europe totally irrelevant and asked Mr HALLIGANwhether the Senate, which he had proposed, would replace the European Council.Ms Ana BIRCHALL (RomanianCamera Deputatilor)expressed the view that non-eurozone EUmember states should be associated in the integration process.In response, Mr DE CROO agreed with the interventions on employment and underlined thatconfidence was the most important element in the integration process and that we had to create it.Politicians had to try to form public opinion rather than only be led by it. Mr HALLIGAN

identified energy and climate change as one of the next great projects binding Europe's nationstogether and said that the social agenda needed to be put centre stage. He stressed that the realmissing piece in the current architecture was that of national Parliaments. He believed that nationalParliament cooperation needed to be brought institutionally into the system, rather than remainingout of it. He suggested the idea of a (European) Senate which would institutionalise therelationship between national Parliaments in the place of current formulas, rather than being leftto an analogous intergovernmental procedure.

4. ‘Delivering on Development’

Panel: Dr Mo Ibrahim, Chairman, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, Ms Michèle Striffler, Vice-president ofthe Development Committee of the European Parliament and Mr Barry Andrews, Chief Executive,GOAL.Dr Mo IBRAHIM discussed some of the challenges which Africa faced and presented four priorityareas: regional and economic integration, agriculture, youth and education. He supported the EUmodel on promoting regional and economic integration in Africa, with freedom of goods, capitaland people - an area which Africa places great importance on. He further emphasised the need forAfrican leaders to focus on promoting good governance, the rule of law and good management ofpublic finances. To this effect, he explained how African leaders were motivated to promote theabove policies. Finally, on the issue of post 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), henoted that there was lack of statistical data and urged the EU to allocate more aid to buildingstatistical offices in developing countries.Ms Michèle STRIFFLER referred to the United Nations (UN) adoption of the MillenniumDeclaration in September 2000 for the achievement of specific goals by 2015 and noted that,although significant progress has been made, much remained to be done. She said that on 30thMay 2013 the High-Level Panel, studying the post-2015 program presented a report, which wasthe starting point of the UN consultation process on Post-MDGs. She noted that national budgetsshould be used responsibly in order to encourage economic development and private investment.Regarding development aid, she underlined that the fight against poverty could be achieved bycombined efforts of support development strategies and economic growth, twinned with the fairdistribution of wealth. She added that €1,000 billion investment is expected in developingcountries between 2015 and 2030. On the issue of the Monterrey Consensus on developmentfinancing, whereby the EU committed to collectively dedicate 0.7% of their gross national incometo development aid by 2015, she expressed her disappointment that, in the light of the economicrecession, most EU Member States were a long way off the track for meeting the abovecommitment. She further advocated that Member States and the EU must "speak with a singlevoice" in order to ensure an effective aid expenditure. The 2014-2020 financial prospects and theEuropean Council decision of the 8th February 2013 to cut the budget by 10% (€58.7 billion)included a 16.1% decrease on development and humanitarian aid, compared to the EuropeanCommission's initial proposal, which went along with an additional €3.32 billion cut of the 11thEuropean Development Fund (EDF), compared to the Commission's suggestion. She mentionedthat the European Parliament and the Irish Presidency were currently negotiating a revisedproposal so that the development and humanitarian budgets fulfilled the EU commitments.Referring to the Agenda for Change that introduces the concept of differentiation, Ms STRIFFLERnoted that the EU would target its development aid to the poorest countries. Although thisdifferentiated approach for aid is not favoured by Members States, she supported a joint effort byboth the EU and Member States that would help reduce aid fragmentation and maximise aidimpact and efficiency.

Mr Barry ANDREWS presented the work of the GOAL that was currently active in 13 countriesglobally and worked with very vulnerable populations and he said that Ireland had been at theforefront of the aid debate by leading innovations in education and health care in the developingworld. He further mentioned that Ireland also hosted very active and innovative branches of majorworld NGOs, such as Oxfam, World Vision, Plan and UNICEF. Concerning the relationshipbetween GOAL and the EU, he presented some of the key programmes the EU:The programme in Sierra Leone that supported GOAL's disadvantaged children and youthinitiative that addressed the needs of street children, by providing them with a safe haven,food and alternative choices in life.The "Reflect" programme in South Sudan, designed to empower women in vulnerablecommunities through raising literacy levels, reducing child mortality and ensuring sustainabledevelopment.

With reference to the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria in recent years, Mr Andrews underlinedthe total failure of the international system. He noted the efforts made by the UN in government-held areas and refugee camps in neighbouring countries, at the same time noting that pressure onthe Turkish border line was escalating. Mr Andrews further said that the UN, in its attempt toreconcile the sovereignty of Member States and the protection of populations when a MemberState failed, had started the "Responsibility to Protect" initiative.Regarding the role of NGOs, Mr ANDREWS, stated that it was urgent to reconsider their role withregards to the transferability of European, Chinese or American standards to many settings inAfrica, as well as the self-serving nature of some NGOs. In his concluding remarks, he mentionedthat India, among many other countries, had moved from being a low-income to a middle-incomecountry and that it was for this reason that GOAL was in the process of reconfiguring theiroperation so that it was locally incorporated and run by Indian nationals. Finally, he stated that thepost-2015 agenda should be shaped through dialogue with those affected, otherwise the policies inprocess would be impaired.In the debate that followed, 18 speakers took the floor. Many spoke about the importance of goodgovernance and some expressed their concern that funding from Member States would reach thetarget of 0.7% of their GDP by 2015, as set in the MDGs. Others commented on the corruption indeveloping countries. Mr Honório NOVO (PortugueseAssembleia da Republica)expressedconcern that some aid did not reach its destination and pointed out that the public funds that shouldbe used to reach the goal of 0.7% GDP were currently being used for the bailing out of banks andfinancial institutions. Ms Jana JENKO (SlovenianDržavni Zbor)suggested that the EU shouldformulate a uniform approach so that poverty was effectively eradicated. She further added thatdeveloping countries should also be responsible for their own development. Ms Elena FATTORI(ItalianSenato della Repubblica)suggested that if the deadline of 2015 was to be met, newstrategies need to be developed, adding that the post-2015 policy could be a turning point to put anend to hunger in the world. Mr Miguel Ángel MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ (European Parliament)noted that the European Development Fund covered expenditure for an agreement betweendeveloped and developing countries and from which 78 countries benefit. Ms Jean BIZET (FrenchSénat)pointed out that sustainability could be reached by the alignment of all policies, suggestingat the same time that illegal migration should be addressed. Ms Olga ZRIHEN (BelgiumSénat)pointed out that consistency of policies was necessary and condemned the European banks forbeing allowed to engage in food speculation, while Mr Epameinondas MARIAS (GreekVouli tonEllinon)rejected the idea of money being spent on bankrupt banks and suggested that instead

money should be invested in development aid which could be used to help and encourage Africansto remain in Africa.In response to the comments made by the speakers, Ms STRIFFLER answered that thoughcorruption can not be completely eliminated, developing countries needed to focus on buildinggood governance and said that there was a need to work with people in developing countries aswell as invest in these countries. She further said that Europe had made good use of the resourcesin developing countries but that there was a need to put in place a scheme involving aid from theEU and Member States. On the same issue, Dr IBRAHIM pointed out that despite huge growth inprofits, Africa incurs losses in illicit funds that amount to USD 70 billion per year. He went on tosay that many multinationals in Africa did not pay taxes and suggested that if the EU tackles theproblem of illegal transfers, this would be more useful than the aid of 0.7% GDP sent. In reply toquestions from Ms Nia GRIFFITH (UKHouse of Commons),Dr IBRAHIM answered that in orderto enable the EU to finance its promises, the tax race to the bottom should be stopped byintroducing a reasonable corporate tax rate and that during the upcoming negotiations on a EU-USTransatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) subsidies should be addressed (US cottonsubsidies, EU agricultural policy) which prevented fair trade conditions for Africa. On the issue ofpost-2015 MDGs, he noted that there was a lack of statistical data and urged the EU to allocatemore aid to building statistical offices in developing countries. In the line of corruption andaccountability, he stressed the need for businesses and governments to improve their practices andadvocated that, by working together, corruption would be effectively dealt with. Answering MrDemetris SYLLOURIS (CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon),within the context of promoting goodgovernance and how Africa can be supported to this end, Dr IBRAHIM emphasised theimportance of building capacity as being a key factor for development, adding that the element of"know how" was also of great importance.In response to questions from Mr Nico SCHRIJVER (DutchEerste Kamer)and Baroness MargaretLola YOUNG (UKHouse of Lords),Mr ANDREWS advocated stronger coherence in EUdevelopment aid by using economic partnership agreements and coordinating EU aid with UNinitiatives (e.g. on fighting climate change and in the Rio+20 process). A global UN compact forcompanies could be set up, following the example of the recent signature of a zero deforestationagreement by 400 blue-chip companies under the auspices of US President Obama.

5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

Mr HANNIGAN informed the Chairpersons that the Irish Presidency had submitted the first draftof the Contribution and Conclusions on 10 June 2013 and the second draft on 19 June 2013. Sincethen the Presidency had received amendments from national Parliaments and the EuropeanParliament on both documents. Following a debate, an amended text of the Contribution andConclusions of the XLIX COSAC was voted and agreed.

6. ‘A European Future for Young Citizens’

Keynote speaker: Mr Joe COSTELLO, Minister of State. Interventions by three young Europeans:Ms Nevin Öztop (Turkey), Ms Rachel Creevy (Ireland) and Ms Marietta Herfort (Hungary).Mr Joe COSTELLO, Minister of State, replacing Minister for Education and Skills Ruairi Quinn,reiterated that in view of the unprecedented levels of unemployment and youth unemployment, theIrish Council Presidency shifted its priority to growth and job creation. He stated that every policyought to be measured against whether it provided employment to people and that €6 bilion for theYouth Employment Initiative (YEI) was not enough. He highlighted the necessity to addressmarginalisation and social fragmentation. The Irish Presidency of the Council of Ministers had

therefore focussed on the social inclusion of young people. The Presidency had organisedconferences with the aim of involving young people as an attempt to find mechanisms to allowyoung people to participate in policy making and shaping their future. Finally, Mr COSTELLOreminded participants that the vision of the founding fathers was a vision of inclusion. The EUshould build on that, especially in times of crisis.Following the Minister's presentation had invited three young Europeans, invited by the IrishPresidency presented their ideas about a future for young citizens in Europe in an interviewconducted by COSAC Chair Mr Dominic HANNIGAN. Ms Nevin ÖZTOP, speaking from theperspective of a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community (LGBT), pointedout that discrimination of LGBT people started at home when families kicked out their children, atschool with homophobic bullying and then continued on the labour market. It was difficult forLGBT people to find a job and keep it. She pointed out that it was not about obtaining specialrights but about being treated in a non-discriminatory way. Nobody should be treated differentlybecause of who they love. Ms Rachel CREEVY, a young disabled citizen, emphasised thedifferences in attitudes between the United States and in Europe. While in the US attitudes werequite refreshing and she was not patronised, in Europe she felt like being defined by peoplethrough her disability. Barriers should be tackled by involving disabled persons in the necessarychanges as they were experts in their life. Ms Marietta HERFORT, an ethnic Roma, reported thatdespite the European Roma strategy, members of her ethnic group still did not enjoy the samerights in 2013. Instead anti-Roma, xenophobia, radicalism and populist parties were growing.Roma were used as a scapegoat in Europe. If only one out of three young Roma had a job howcould their trust in society be gained, she asked. Segregation at schools had to stop.In the ensuing debate, 24 speakers took the floor. Ms Ana BIRCHALL (RomanianCameraDeputatilor)said that young people should become the priority for the EU. Each euro spent on thisshould be seen as an investment in the future. She also asked what the five priority measures foryoung people were to unlock the potential to keep Europe competitive.Several contributors to the debate mentioned concrete examples for the insertion into the labourmarket: Mr Fritz NEUGEBAUER (AustrianNationalrat)recommended the Austrian modelcombining school and work during apprenticeships as an example to bridge the transition into thelabour market, while Ms Nia GRIFFITH (UKHouse of Commons)referred to a placement schemewith 80 per cent success. Ms Agnieszka POMASKA (PolishSejm)suggested a higher professionalmobility to tackle unemployment. Closing borders or limiting access were at odds with this. MrGordan JANDROKOVIĆ (CroatianSabor)commented that according to Croatia's experienceeducation and exchange of students via the EU's ERASMUS programme were useful tools wherethe EU should use its clout to make a difference. Ms Mihaela POPA (RomanianSenatul)called forthe establishment of a Commissioner for Youth.Mr Rafał TRZASKOWSKI(European Parliament) called for a well-funded MFF, benchmarks andthe exploitation of development potential was crucial. Phenomena like digital exclusion should beovercome and used to open up society. These kinds of niches should be looked at holistically. MsZanda KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA(LatvianSaeima)requested that the next MFF treat youthunemployment as stimulus, but not create unsustainable subsidies. There would be merit in anexchange of experiences.Ms Janja NAPAST (SlovenianDržavni Zbor)was critical that Slovenia was not eligible to benefitfrom the youth employment initiative even though youth unemployment had increased by 40 percent in just one year and she asked for that to change. Mr Georgios VAREMENOS (GreekVouli

ton Ellinon)complained that a lost generation would be created and that in order to allowyoungsters to stay in their country, investments in growth were needed. Mr EpameinondasMARIAS (GreekVouli ton Ellinon)complained that Greece - in terms of money - received awhole Marshall plan but that it was simply used to save banks and not invested in the realeconomy, quoting the IMF who confessed that mistakes were made in the Greek programme.Ms Paola CARINELLI (ItalianCamera dei Deputati)requested an earlier disbursement of theyouth guarantee. Europe should act as guarantor that the monies were well spent. Ms OlgaZRIHEN (BelgianSenát)said that it was very hard to avoid despair among young people and thatit therefore was necessary to provide them with a concrete job perspective within four months. Itwas fundamental not to separate the future of the EU from the future for young people. Mr PeterSZALAY (HungarianOrszággyűlés)also described youth unemployment as more than aneconomic problem and young people should have prospects in life, otherwise they were prone toradicalism.Mr Carlos SÃO MARTINHO (PortugueseAssembleia da Republica)observed that youthunemployment spread quickly and that people need to be given their rights: freedom and solidarity.There was a need to renew Europe and to take strong measures. According to Mr Arto AAS(EstonianRiigikogu)the sources of discrimination should be tackled as well as the causes forunemployment. Estonia had discovered that it suffered a demographic problem so that it had toadapt the education system and make the labour markets more flexible to allow young people toenter the labour market. Things had to be done at home; it was not for Brussels to deliver on this.Ms Martha Margretha DE BOER (DutchEerste Kamer)pointed out that the recent Commissioncommunication on employment did not say anything about marginalised youth and asked whetherit was necessary to take specific steps. Mr Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS (GreekVouli tonEllinon)commented that, whenever the most vulnerable groups in society had problems in findinga job, Europe moved away further from its vision and democracy had a problem surviving.Mr Fidias SARIKAS (CypriotVouli ton Antiprosopon)admitted that Europe still had a long wayto go before it abolished discrimination completely and asked whether this was a question of theright laws or more a question of awareness-raising. Mr Paschal DONOHOE (IrishHouses of theOireachtas)asked whether the introduction of a disability card as suggested by Ms Cheevy wouldbe a good idea. Mr Miguel Ángel MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ (European Parliament) reminded thatyoung citizens were not only the future, but they were the citizens of today too. He pointed out thatdiscrimination was a problem, regardless of age.Ms HERFORT replied that although young people were not politicians, they could get involved inthe monitoring of the situation. They could collect information first hand on the ground. She alsorequested that the inclusion of Roma, LGBT and disabled people should be sped up by launchingnumerous campaigns and Ms CREEVY said that tackling discrimination should start in schools.She added that in her life education raised the barriers. A disability card could help overcomepractical difficulties and could be introduced as part of the European Year of Citizens. Ms ÖZTOPreplied to Mr Andrius MAZURONIS (LithuanianSeimas)who had asked how politicians shouldstart to talk to their citizens about discrimination when societies were not ready to discuss theissue, that a lot of countries have their own issues; a first step in Lithuania could be to abolish therecent law about inter-homosexuality in the name of protecting under-age people. Other countriesshould stop the use of terms like "psycho-sexual disorder" with regards to LGBT people. Herpriority was to abolish discrimination in the working place in order to guarantee self-sustainabilityof LGBT people. Ms HERFORT agreed on this point. However, when Ms ÖZTOP listened to

other LGBT people in Europe she found that implementing the non-discrimination laws wastricky. Mr Michele BORDO (ItalianCamera dei Deputati)confirmed that rules that bandiscrimination existed but that there still were various forms of discrimination in real life.Mr COSTELLO supported the creation of closer links between school and the labour market,formation and enterprises. He also advocated front-loading the €6 billion YEI. He pointed out theneed to involve young people and to ask them for answers on how to keep young people out oflong-term unemployment. He also mentioned that Ireland gave a good example with its LGBTconference earlier this year and underlined that in his opinion a mix of education and laws werenecessary to overcome discrimination. If young people did not find a meaningful position in lifethere was the danger that they would feel purposeless. The minister picked up on the idea of an EUdisability card to guarantee equal access in terms of transport etc. the realisation of which wouldcertainly be a major achievement.

7. ‘Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy – Maintaining Momentum’

Keynote speakers: Dr Valentin Inzko, High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Mr ErwanFouéré, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.Dr INZKO said that the Office of the High Representative (OHR), operating under the PeaceAgreement and a series of UN Security Council Resolutions, has stepped back in recent yearstaking note of the reinforced EU Delegation, headed by Ambassador Peter Sørensen. This was toencourage integration with the EU being put at the heart of domestic policy. He said that the EUpolicy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) must be targeted and tailored to get around thecountry's recent history, it must fight against the alternative objective of some of division andsecession, and must remember that successful integration of BiH would yield benefits to all thepeoples of Europe. The process in BiH had hit a roadblock; attempts to re-open fundamentals ofthe Peace Agreement, including the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. Negativedevelopments have been the result of unwillingness on the part of the political establishment,however, Dr INZKO argued that an alternative was possible, especially in the light of the historicagreement recently reached between Kosovo and Serbia and the EU knocking at the door with theCroatian accession. He said that the people wanted to join the EU, but the leaders were much moreambivalent.The High Representative argued that engagement with BiH had to be rethought, though theinternational community must remain committed. He said that the international community'sapproach to BiH should be to broaden the dialogue out from political leaders to also include theirconstituents. Obstructionists should not be able to maintain the perception that they are part of thesolution. The international community should return to its core values and make the most of theinstruments available by linking financial assistance more closely with political progress,confronting parties that block progress and by reaffirming the role of the OHR and EUFOR.Mr FOUÉRÉ said that much progress had been made in the 10 years since the Western BalkansSummit in Thessaloniki that made clear the possibility of an EU future for Western Balkancountries. He believed that visa free travel for citizens to the Schengen area had been the greatestachievement and had shown that these countries had the capacity to deliver if given clearguidelines and incentives. The soft power of the EU had been shown to work. However, there wasno denying that support for continued enlargement was decreasing and he argued a pause inenlargement would mean that the EU lost much of its credibility in the region. He hoped thatHeads of State and Government would emphasise the importance of enlargement at their meetingin Brussels held that week. He wanted to see improvements in the situation in Albania, BiH and

FYROM, in particular as regards the culture of political dialogue and media freedom, and he wasconcerned about Turkey; these countries were lagging behind and he wanted the EU to encouragethem to continue reforms. He said that there was no substitute for political dialogue and consensusbuilding and that parties had to work together to reach the set goal. The EU should strengthen andreconfirm its commitment to enlargement in response to those in civil society and in the generalpopulation who supported EU membership.As first respondent to the debate, Mr MARTINÉZ MARTINÉZ, European Parliament, said that hehas personally witnessed enormous interest in candidate and pre-candidate countries in EUmembership. In its expansion from six to 28 Member States, the EU had obviously been a story ofsuccess, the waiting list of potential member countries and the Nobel Peace Prize were testamentto this. He said that the Copenhagen criteria should be adhered to and perhaps should include theprinciple of solidarity. MEPs, of which the majority were still pro-European, considered the abilityto join the EU as a right and not a grace; there should be no gaps in the European map as newcountries benefit all, not just those acceding. Enlargement must be carried out against objectivecriteria and not as per a political agenda. The EP had a role in ratifying the accession agreementsand this was an important role to ensure new criteria were met, and to ensure the EU was carefulnot to exercise double standards where more was expected of the candidates than EU countries. Hesaid he would be happy to be welcoming Croatia on 1 July 2013 and he expressed concern aboutthe situation in Turkey, though he was happy that the surreal situation about Iceland had come toan end as regards EU membership, as the people had been opposed to it.In the debate that followed, 26 speakers took the floor.Mr Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS(LithuanianSeimas)said that it was strategically important to keep the European Union as an open process aspart of the Europeanisation process. However, he also emphasised the importance of theCopenhagen criteria and that their implementation must be a high priority to ensure the quality ofenlargement as an important part of the process. Ms Anna FOTYGA (PolishSejm)said that thevision and determination shown through the Thessaloniki process must also be shown by the EUtowards the Eastern Partnership countries and despite very big concerns asked for a positive signalto be sent to Turkey in recognition of the great transformative steps reached. Mr Simon SUTOUR(FrenchSenát)called for greater emphasis on the Mediterranean Union and welcomed PresidentSchulz's emphasis on this and further noted that Turkey needed to respect the rule of law,commenting that it occupies a Member State. Mr Damir MATELJAN (CroatianHrvatski Sabor)commented that Croatia was the first country to accede to the EU alone but he did not want it to bethe last. He said that Croatia would be persistent in its support for the accession of Western Balkancountries as well as Eastern Partners.Mr Fritz NEUGEBAUER (AustrianNationalrat)praised the work of Dr INZKO and appreciatedthe comments he had made about the state of play in BiH and asked if the situation was hopeless.Mr William CASH (UKHouse of Commons)encouraged caution on BiH not to bring about abacklash and said that enlargement in the South East could lead to an over ambitious and overextended EU. A number of members expressed concern about the civil unrest in Turkey and itsmanagement by the authorities. Mr Igors PIMENOVS (LatvianSaeima)said that he thought thatthe economic components of enlargement were more important than the political components, ifcountries were not adequately prepared economically there would be problems for their people andthe EU. Baroness SCOTT (UKHouse of Lords)said that it must be recognised that the transitionprocess itself was positive, not just the final destination of accession, she said that the EU andgovernments needed to communicate clearly all the benefits of the enlargement process andhighlighted the report recently adopted by the EU Committee of the House of Lords onenlargement. Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK (HungarianOrszággyűlés)highlighted the activities of the

Hungarian Parliament that was very active in organising twinning projects with Parliaments in theBalkan region.Mr Christos MESSIS (CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon)said that unfortunate incidents had beenobserved in Turkey recently and he said that he hoped that Turkey would make improvements inthe respect of human rights and freedom of expression and would bring about normalisation ofrelations with Cyprus by ending their occupation of a part of Cyprus. Mr Epameinondas MARIAS(GreekVouli ton Ellinon)expressed concern about events in the FYROM Parliament on 24December 2012 and said that double standards should not be applied as he believed FYROM didnot receive the same treatment as BiH.Ms Gordana ČOMIĆ(SerbianNarodna skupstina)highlighted the recent agreement betweenSerbia and Kosovo and the success of the dialogue and the incentive of enlargement prospects inthis process to bring about this and improvements in the region. She appealed to members to sendthe message that a date for accession of Serbia was no longer impossible to set. Mr FOUÉRÉ saidthat the agreement had been remarkable and he hoped others would emulate the agreement. MrBirgir ÁRMANNSSON (IcelandicAlthingi)said that the new government in Iceland has a positiveoutlook on Europe, EEA and Schengen membership but it does not believe that EU membership isin the best interests of Iceland. MsAyşe Eser DANIŞOĞLU(TurkishBüyük Millet Meclisi)instead pleaded for the continuation of negotiations with Turkey and opening of chapters 23 and 24on justice, home affairs and fundamental rights, since the protest of more than 100.000 people in76 cities had proven that they had democratic values. MrJovan MARTINOVIĆ(MontenegrinSkupština)underlined the strong impetus of the preliminary closure of two negotiation chapters onhis country and requested the crucial chapters 23 and 24 to be opened soon. Several participants,among whom MrAndrzej GALAŻEWSKI(PolishSejm)advocated the signing of an SAA withUkraine as this would contribute to shaping the Union's relations with all eastern neighbours in thefuture. Mr Herman DE CROO (BelgianSénat)asked for more COSAC debating time to beallocated to enlargement in future meetings since every national Parliament had to approve any EUaccession.In reply Dr INZKO said that there was still hope for the Western Balkans region, he said he was infavour of early candidate status being granted to BiH and others in the region as this was the bestway to ensure that the reform process continued at a good pace. He called it a mistake to assumethat the concept of competition which worked for the enlargement to the east would work on theWestern Balkans too. The year 2014 with the 100th anniversary of the assassination of Austrianheir to the throne Franz Ferdinand offered the opportunity to address messages of peace to thepopulation. It may take more time before countries were ready to accede but it was better to lockthem into the reform process. Next year should be a breakthrough year for every Western Balkanscountry. By then all of them should have contractual relations with the EU. He said that courageand leadership were missing and a recalibrated approach was therefore needed from theinternational community.Mr FOUÉRÉ argued that better and more consistent use of instruments (i.e. progress reports andconditionality) was needed to stimulate progress in BiH. He welcomed the EuropeanCommission's recent focus on the rule of law and called for emphasis to be given to EU values inthe engagement with civil society. He also encouraged those who had been through reconciliationto share their experiences with those not there yet. Reconciliation could not be imposed but had tocome from the region itself. He was also concerned by events in FYROM. He appealed to Greeceand FYROM to sit down and enter a dialogue to finally resolve the name issue. He agreed that theMediterranean Union needed more attention and a more proactive approach. He welcomed the

House of Lords report and agreed with the need better to communicate the benefits of the wholeenlargement process within the EU as well as in candidate countries. Regarding Ukraine he arguedthat bringing the country into an SAA would be the best way of bringing about reforms.

8. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIX COSAC

Mr HANNIGAN presented the final draft of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIXCOSAC to the meeting. He reported that the documents had been amended during a lively debateand voting in the Chairpersons meeting held the previous evening and he expressed his hope thatthey could now be agreed by consensus.Mr MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ informed those present that the delegation of the EuropeanParliament would vote in favour of Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIX COSAC if thefollowing statement was included in the minutes: “The European Parliament would reject anyinterpretation of proposals contained in the Contribution of the XLIX COSAC which would gobeyond the letter or the spirit of the Treaties, with specific reference to the role of COSAC and thecurrent balance between national and European parliamentary institutions.”Mr Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS (GreekVouli ton Ellinon)informed the meeting that theGreek delegation would vote against the Contribution because of the evaluation within theContribution of the situation of FYROM, where there seems to be an interruption of Europeanprocess and necessary reforms. There had been serious incidents within the Parliament, thesituation was getting worse from the point of human rights and individual freedoms. The nameissue is still not resolved either. He had wanted all these points to be reflected in the text.Ms Margreet DE BOER (DutchEerste Kamer)informed that the DutchEerste Kamercould agreewith the draft Contribution, but DutchTweede Kamerwould abstain from supporting the draftContribution, because of the rejection of the Dutch amendment.Ms Zanda KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA(LatvianSaeima)thanked the Presidency for includingParagraph 8 in the draft Contribution with the reference to Latvia's accession to the eurozone.Mr William CASH (UKHouse of Commons)said that in relation to development reference shouldbe made to the role of women in relation to improving global development. Regarding Paragraph34 of the draft Contribution and arising from the informal lunch time session on parliamentarypractices in selective EU scrutiny, it was agreed that Parliaments would provide information ontheir scrutiny systems for mutual exchange which would help everybody in the EU to learn abouteach others systems.Hereafter, the conference adopted the text of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIXCOSAC as amended by the meeting of the Chairpersons. Once translated into all official languagesof the EU, the Contribution of the XLIX COSAC will be published in the Official Journal of theEU.Finally, Mr KIRKILAS congratulated Ireland on a very successful Presidency. He confirmedLithuania's readiness to take over its first Presidency of the EU Council and announced that thenext meeting of the COSAC Chairpersons would take place on 7-8 July 2013 and the L COSACplenary meeting would be on 27-29 October 2013. Both meetings would take place in Vilnius.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE XLIX COSAC

Dublin, Ireland, 23-25 June 2013

AGENDA:

1. Welcome addresses and procedural issues

2. ‘Taking Stock and Looking to the Future’

3. ‘The Future of European Integration’

4. ‘Delivering on Development’

5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

6. ‘A European Future for Young Citizens’

7. ‘Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy – Maintaining Momentum’

8. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIX COSAC

PROCEEDINGS

1. Welcome addresses and procedural issues

1.1. Opening address by Mr Seán BARRETT T.D., Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann

1.2. Adoption of the agenda, procedural questions and miscellaneous matters

2. ‘Taking Stock and Looking to the Future’

3. ‘The Future of European Integration’

4. ‘Delivering on Development’

5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

6. ‘A European Future for Young Citizens’

7. ‘Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy – Maintaining Momentum’

8. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIX COSAC