Europaudvalget 2013-14
EUU Alm.del Bilag 90
Offentligt
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE L COSACVilnius, Lithuania, 27-29 October 2013AGENDA:1. Opening of the L COSAC Meeting- Introductory remarks by Mr Gediminas KIRKILAS, Deputy Speaker of theSeimasofthe Republic of Lithuania and Chair of Committee on European Affairs- Welcome speech by H. E. Loreta GRAUŽINIENĖ,Speaker of theSeimasof theRepublic of Lithuania- Welcome speech by Mr José Manuel BARROSO, President of the EuropeanCommission (video message)Procedural issues:- Adoption of the Agenda of the L COSAC- Presentation of the 20th Bi-annual Report of COSAC- Briefing on the decisions of the meeting of the Presidential Troika of COSAC- Briefing on the letters received by the Presidency Parliament2. 'State of Play of the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the European Union'Keynotespeaker: H. E. Algirdas BUTKEVIČIUS, Prime Minister of the Republic ofLithuania3. 'Contribution of COSAC to strengthening of interparliamentary cooperation in theEuropean Union'Guest-of-Honour: Mr Laurent FABIUS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic ofFrance, former Speaker of the FrenchAssemblée nationale4.'European Elections 2014: Platform for Debate on the EU Future with Its Citizens'Keynote speaker: Mr Pat COX, former President of the European ParliamentKeynote speaker: Mr Andrew DUFF, Member of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ofthe European Parliament, rapporteur on improving the practical arrangements for the holdingof the European elections in 20145. 'Parliamentary diplomacy – the EP-Ukraine – a case study'Presentation by Mr Pat COX, former President of the European Parliament6. 'Implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy 'Keynote speaker: Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-Presidentof the European Commissionresponsible for Inter-Institutional Relations and AdministrationKeynote speaker: Ms Pervenche BERÈS, Chair of the Committee on Employment and SocialAffairs of the European Parliament7. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC- Briefing on the first meeting of the COSAC Women's Forum -8. 'Democratic Legitimacy in the EU and the role of EU Parliaments'Keynote speaker: Ms Eva Kjer HANSEN, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of theDanishFolketingKeynote speaker: Mr Dominic HANNIGAN, Chair of the Joint Committee on EuropeanUnion Affairs of the IrishHouses of the OireachtasKeynote speaker: Mr Hans-Gert PÖTTERING, former President of the European Parliament,Member of the European Parliament9. 'Digital Agenda: challenges and perspectives'9.1. Cyber securityKeynote speaker: Mr Rudolf Peter ROY, Head of division for Security Policy and Sanctionsof the European External Action Service9.2. 'Benefits for business'Keynote speaker: Mr Ilja LAURS, Chief Executive Officer of GetJar, winner of“European Manager of the Year 2011 Award”, presented by the EuropeanBusiness Press (EBP)10. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the L COSAC1
PROCEEDINGSIN THE CHAIR: Mr Gediminas KIRKILAS, Deputy Speaker of theSeimasof the Republic ofLithuania and Chair of the Committee on European Affairs.1. Introductory remarks by Mr Gediminas KIRKILAS, Deputy Speaker of theSeimasof theRepublic of Lithuania and Chair of the Committee on European Affairs; welcome speech byH. E. LoretaGRAUŻINIENĖ,Speaker of theSeimasof the Republic of LithuaniaMr KIRKILAS welcomed participants to the meeting of the L COSAC and recalled the firstmeeting of COSAC held on 16-17 November 1989 in the FrenchAssemblée nationale.Hewelcomed the new Chair of the Bulgarian delegation, Mr Mladen CHERVENIAKOV. A videoabout the restoration of Lithuania's statehood and the historic Hall of the Act of 11 March wasshown. Mr KIRKILAS announced that he would co-chair the meeting with Mr PetrasAUŠTREVIČIUS, DeputySpeaker of theSeimasof the Republic of Lithuania and Deputy Chair ofthe Committee on European Affairs.H. E. Loreta GRAUŻINIENĖ, Speaker of the LithuanianSeimas,welcomed the delegates to the LCOSAC meeting and noted that almost twenty years had passed since the entry into force of theTreaty of Maastricht on 1 November 1993. She reviewed the two interparliamentary conferencesheld in the framework of the parliamentary dimension of the Lithuanian Presidency of the EUCouncil: the Inter-Parliamentary Conference for CFSP and CSDP which discussed, in a timelymanner, the response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria; and the first InterparliamentaryConference on Economic and Financial Governance of the European Union, based on Article 13 ofthe Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union(TSCG), which had laid the grounds for the future functioning of this Conference. She noted thatthe L COSAC meeting would seek to promote a more active role for national Parliaments and toenhance the cooperation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament in order tomaintain a constant and efficient interinstitutional dialogue at national and the European levels. Shealso pointed out that for the first time within the COSAC framework there would be a COSACWomen's Forum where women parliamentarians could discuss issues of common concern andwhich the Presidency was planning to convene on the basis of the suggestion from the Vice-President of the FrenchSénat,Ms Bariza KHIARI.The video message of the President of the European Commission, Mr José Manuel BARROSO,was screened. He congratulated COSAC on its 50th jubilee meeting and its development into asubstantial factor in interparliamentary cooperation on European Union policies. He recalled that atthe time of the first COSAC meeting in 1989 an era of new impetus for European integration and ofdiscussions about democratic legitimacy on European affairs had commenced. Looking ahead heexpressed his wish that comprehensive solutions for the future could be achieved by completing thearchitecture of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), by returning to a new kind ofsustainable growth, by keeping on course for fiscal consolidation, by accelerating the pace ofstructural reforms and by boosting investment in the real economy as well as by fightingunemployment. He therefore welcomed the central place for theEurope 2020Strategy on theagenda of the jubilee COSAC meeting.1.2. Adoption of the agenda, procedural questions and miscellaneous mattersThe Chair presented the draft agenda of the L COSAC which was adopted without amendments. MrKIRKILAS then moved on to the presentation of the 20th Bi-annual Report of COSAC, containingthree chapters on 1. European Elections 2014: Platform for Debate on the EU Future with itsCitizens. 2. Democratic Legitimacy in the EU and the Role of EU Parliaments. 3. Implementationof theEurope 2020Strategy. The first chapter showed support for establishing stronger linksbetween European and national parties as well as for the nomination of party candidates for the postof the President of the European Commission. The second chapter showed the overriding2
importance that national Parliaments accorded to the democratic control of their own governmentsin EU affairs as well as the value of COSAC, political dialogue and IPEX as tools ofinterparliamentary cooperation. The third chapter demonstrated the increasing focus of Parliamentson the fight against unemployment and described parliamentary procedures and best practicesrelated to the implementation of theEurope 2020Strategy.Mr KIRKILAS informed the participants of the results of the meeting of the Presidential Troika ofCOSAC held the previous afternoon, and especially the nomination of Ms Christiana FRYDA,official of the CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon,as a new Permanent Member of the COSACsecretariat following the interviews with four candidates. Mr KIRKILAS announced thatamendments to the draft Contribution and Conclusions as amended by the Presidential Troika ofCOSAC the previous day would be accepted until noon.Mr KIRKILAS communicated that the Lithuanian Presidency had received six letters from:The PolishSenatregarding the meeting of the parliamentary EU Affairs Committees of theCzech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary.The LatvianSaeimaregarding the traditional informal consultations of the European UnionAffairs Committees of the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish Parliaments.The Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament MrCarlo CASINI regarding his unavailability to attend the L COSAC meeting.The Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Parliament of Ukraine Mr VitaliyKALYUZHNYY regarding his unavailability to attend the L COSAC meeting.The Former President of the Republic of Poland Mr Aleksander KWAŚNIEWSKI regardinghis unavailability to attend the L COSAC meeting.The Vice-Presidentof the European Commission Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ regarding theofficial reply to the Contribution of the XLIX COSAC.Ms Tineke STRIK (Greens/EFA), DutchEerste Kamer,expressed her concern that the nextCOSAC Chairpersons' meeting would overlap with a session of the Parliamentary Assembly of theCouncil of Europe and asked that such conflict of dates be avoided in the future.Mr René LEEGTE (ALDE), DutchTweede Kamer,mentioned that a position paper of his Chamberon democratic legitimacy was distributed outside the meeting room and said he was lookingforward to replies.2. 'State of Play of the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the European Union'Keynote speaker: H. E. Algirdas BUTKEVIČIUS, Prime Minister of the Republic of LithuaniaIn his speech, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania, Mr AlgirdasBUTKEVIČIUSwelcomed the role played by COSAC in addressing European issues and ensuring that the EU wasmore democratic and accountable to its citizens. The jubilee L COSAC Meeting and the LithuanianPresidency coincided with the European Year of Citizens, so particular efforts were being made torespond to the concerns of all European citizens.As for the major goals of the Lithuanian Presidency, the Prime Minister referred to a growing,reliable and open Europe. He stressed the importance of demonstrating the economic and socialpolicy results to European citizens and the rest of the world and of ensuring that the EU stood on afirm footing regarding its financial situation and continued to be an example of openness. TheLithuanian Presidency had contributed to launching legislation in that regard.The threat posed by weak banks to the whole European financial system had proven the need for arapid EU response to avoid adverse effects. The creation of the banking union would ensure that allEU banks would operate under common rules and that the interests of depositors would be better3
protected. The proposal for a Single Resolution Mechanism which was discussed during theInformal Meeting of Ministers for Economics and Financial Affairs in Vilnius represented a firststep.Mr BUTKEVIČIUS called on Member States under economic pressure to seek balance betweeneconomic measures and social challenges. He emphasised that one of the main tasks of theLithuanian Presidency was to ensure that funds from the 2014-2020 Financial Programme reachedbusinesses and Europeans in time. The agreement, in a short time, by the Member States on the EUbudget for 2014 was an achievement of the Lithuanian Presidency. In the coming months, effortswould continue to ensure that political agreement on the EU budget for 2014 could be reached withthe European Parliament. The Prime Minister referred to unemployment as one of the mostchallenging consequences of the crisis, affecting one quarter of young people in the EU. In responseto that problem, the Youth Guarantee and Youth Employment Initiative would be launched in 2014.In order to ensure its effectiveness, economic growth as well as competitiveness and innovationshould be enhanced.In that regard he highlighted the enormous potential of the digital world, referring to researchaccording to which the digital economy could significantly increase GDP over the next decade.Moreover, the common digital market could simplify lives, make travel abroad easier, integrateEuropean payments systems and create employment opportunities for all. In addition, the singleenergy market, which was envisaged to be completed by 2014, would help to achieve morecompetitive prices and would increase the importance of the EU in the international arena.Building on an open Europe, the Lithuanian Presidency had put forward negotiations on free tradeand association agreements with the Eastern Partnership countries and would further promote tiesthrough the organization of the third Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius on 28-29 November2013. The Prime Minister stated that the Eastern partners’ determination and capacity to undertakereforms as well as the common position and support of the EU Member States and institutionswould determine the success of the Summit. Moreover, during the Lithuanian Presidency,negotiations with the USA on the free trade agreement had been launched.In conclusion, Mr BUTKEVIČIUS highlighted the role of Parliaments in using the available toolsto promote economic growth, ensure confidence in the financial system and to allow the EU tobecome more open to the world.In the debate which followed, 17 speakers took the floor. Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK (EPP), HungarianOrszággyűlés,highlighted the importance of making funds accessible to European citizens in timeand creating synergy between cohesion funds and economic governance.Mr Ľuboš BLAHA(S&D), SlovakianNarodna rada,and Mr Össur SKARPHÉÐINSSON (S&D), IcelandicAlthingi,raised the issue of NSA eavesdropping and the extent to which it could threaten the free tradenegotiations with the USA, while Mr Vitalino CANAS (S&D), PortugueseAssembleia daRepublica,asked for a correction of the structural imbalances in the allocation of EU funds and thecompletion of the banking union, an issue also raised by Ms Athina KYRIAKIDOU (S&D), CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon.Mr BUTKEVIČIUS answered that the goal was to better programme anddirect funds so as to reduce differences in the level of development between EU regions and tomake these funds accessible to EU Member States at the beginning of 2014. Enhancing the bankingunion had been a major priority of the Lithuanian Presidency. As far as the free trade negotiationswith the USA were concerned, he announced that there would be a third stage in the negotiations inDecember 2013, but at the same time he condemned the NSA eavesdropping.Highlighting the Lampedusa incident, several parliamentarians (Mr Christopher FEARNE (S&D),MalteseIl-Kamra Tad-Deputati,Mr Paolo TANCREDI (EPP), ItalianCamera dei Deputati,MrEpameinondas MARIAS (Non-affiliated), GreekVouli ton Ellinon,Ms Athina KYRIAKIDOU(S&D), CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon,Ms Danielle AUROI (Greens/EFA),Assemblée nationale)4
raised the issue of migration flows from North Africa and the need for a genuine integratedmigration policy and solidarity among Member States. MrBUTKEVIČIUS stated that themigration issue should be dealt with jointly at EU level and highlighted other aspects of theproblem such as youth migration due to unemployment.Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ (EPP),European Parliament,Mr Mladen CHERVENIAKOV(S&D), BulgarianNarodno Sabranie,Mr Edmund WITTBRODT (EPP), PolishSenat,and MsZanda KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA(Non-affiliated), LatvianSaeima,underlined the importance ofdelivering results at the Eastern Partnership Summit to be held in Vilnius, especially with regard tothe EU-Ukrainenegotiations. Mr BUTKEVIČIUS stressed that Ukraine needed to work hard tomeet its obligations by the end of November 2013 and referred to the work on Moldova andGeorgia done by the Lithuanian Presidency as well as to the special EU-Russia and EU-Turkeyrelations. A number of parliamentarians underlined the importance of continued efforts inpromoting the enlargement policy in the Western Balkans following the accession of Croatia (MrMátyás FIRTL (EPP), HungarianOrszággyűlés,Mr Stefan SCHENNACH (S&D), AustrianBundesrat,Mr Mladen CHERVENIAKOV, BulgarianNarodno Sabranie).Ms Sylvi GRAHAM(EPP), NorwegianStortinget,stated that a Minister for European Affairs was appointed under thenew government for the first time in Norway. Finally, Ms Danielle AUROI, FrenchAssembléenationale,called for strong democratic impetus and enhanced democratic legitimacy and askedabout the prospects of the Interparliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governanceof the European Union.Mr BUTKEVIČIUS commented on the need for broader communication ofEU policies to its citizens.3. 'Contribution of COSAC to strengthening of interparliamentary cooperation in theEuropean Union'Guest-of-Honour: Mr Laurent FABIUS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of FranceThe Guest-of-Honour of the L COSAC, Mr Laurent FABIUS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of theRepublic of France, the former Speaker of the FrenchAssemblée nationaleand the 'founding father'of COSAC back in 1989, in his address noted the crucial need for interparliamentary cooperation toallow national Parliaments to take part in EU politics and to promote cooperation among nationalParliaments and the European Parliament. National Parliaments had an important role to play sinceinterparliamentary cooperation conferred greater legitimacy to decisions taken at European level.He recalled that the first meeting of COSAC, held in November 1989 in Paris, took place at a timewhen the Berlin Wall just had come down. The reasons which justified the creation of COSACback then were still valid even though the European Union looked different today. There was aneed for European decision making to be brought closer to the citizens as these policies had to meetcitizens' expectations. Since the founding of COSAC huge headway had been made but thingswould have to be taken further.The deepening of the European Union and of the EMU via the Six-Pack and the Two-Pack wouldhave a direct impact on national budgets and greater coordination of economic policies at Europeanlevel would necessitate enhanced cooperation between national Parliaments. The principal ruleshould be that at each stage of the process democratic debate would take place. Parliaments had tobe able to fully play their role in order to establish the parliamentary counterpart to governmentaldecisions. This was the purpose of Article 13 of TSCG. The question had to be asked howParliaments could do more and do better on that front.Generally speaking, all institutions, each on its own level, had to commit to serving a greaterdemocratic logic. There were several solutions to this end: first, while many mechanismsintroduced in reaction to the financial and economic crisis, like the European Semester, hadstrengthened the role of the Commission, Parliaments should set up the conditions for a debate onEU matters. The Commission should visit the Member States to explain its policies to nationalparliamentarians and take their questions and requests into consideration. Second, a richer and more5
objective debate in Member States would be needed e.g. when a government supported a decisionat European level it should have the courage to endorse that decision at home. Quoting the Frenchexample, where since 2005 ministers could go to Parliament to discuss points on the agenda of theCouncil of Ministers, he pleaded for all executive bodies to strive to get national Parliaments moreinvolved in EU policies at national level. He warned about the threat of governments using theirnational Parliaments to block EU decisions via the backdoor: Parliaments should express their ownviews on EU affairs but should not systematically block making headway in Europe. Thirdly,Members of the European Parliament were responsible for working together with members ofnational Parliaments. The first meeting of the Interparliamentary Conference on the Economic andFinancial Governance of the European Union pointed in the right direction. Although the Six-Packand Two-Pack procedures were necessary to address the asymmetry of the EMU they had to belegitimised by citizens and in addition the positions of national Parliaments needed to be givencareful consideration to strike the right institutional balance. Moreover, if Members of the EuropeanParliament elected in 28 Member States were to discuss the economic policies of the members ofthe Eurozone, another imbalance would be created. After the next European elections the EuropeanParliament could establish a structure especially designed to consider Eurozone matters in order toensure democratic control of the legitimacy of the decision making on the Eurozone. Fourthly,national Parliaments had a range of instruments at hand. For example, they could send reasonedopinions to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council. Fornational Parliaments this was a way to emphasise their willingness to go further down the path ofEuropean integration and to push forward their desires like in the case of the 'yellow card' on the'Monti II' proposal for the right to strike or now with the second 'yellow card' on the EuropeanPublic Prosecutor Office. This could be interesting to investigate further but not to be abused.In view of the elections of a new European Parliament and a new Commission under newarrangements in a few months Mr FABIUS was concerned about the rate of abstentions or anti-European votes which, in his point of view, could signal that a major overhaul of the Europeanconstruction was needed to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU at all levels. It wasimperative to improve cooperation at all levels of decision making as this would mobilise Europeancitizens for the elections next year.Mr FABIUS emphasised that COSAC had a role to play in this regard as it could enable taking theinitiative for monitoring and for debate at parliamentary level. When people said that Brussels "haddecided" an issue it was technically incorrect and politically dangerous as these were therepresentatives of Member States and their citizens who had actually taken decisions in Brussels,Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Mr FABIUS concluded by saying that Parliaments were the beatingheart of European democracy and the European Union was a common construction serving citizensand COSAC continued to be a crucial forum.4.'European Elections 2014: Platform for Debate on the EU Future with Its Citizens'Keynote speakers: Mr Pat COX, former President of the European Parliament, and Mr AndrewDUFF, Member of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament, rapporteuron improving the practical arrangements for the holding of the European elections in 2014Mr Pat COX, former President of the European Parliament pointed out that the eighth directelections to the European Parliament would take place against the backdrop of an unprecedentedcrisis which had already shown its impact in opinion polls and elections. When asked who wouldbe best suited to help overcome the crisis, the acceptance of EU institutions had fallen to 50 %,while the acceptance of Member States' institutions had crept up to 41 %. Secondly, with theexception of three states which returned incumbent governments, in all other national elections theincumbents were wiped out and, thirdly, extremist parties were on the rise everywhere. Greatinterstate tensions arose around the fear of endless financial transfers on the one side and the fear ofendless austerity measures on the other. Historic levels of unemployment were mirrored by a6
growing level of poverty. Bearing in mind the effects of financial consolidation, the resulting socialcrisis had to be addressed too, in order to make this 'election bird' fly with two wings.Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Council became an institutionand during the economic crisis the Council and the Eurozone acted as the new centres of decisionmaking despite the fact that the European Parliament had become co-legislator in most areas. Partlyin reaction to this, political parties would name their candidates for the post of President of theEuropean Commission and would try to build a political platform for election next year. This newPresident, it was hoped, would not be the old bipolar Commission/Council representative but wouldact within the new institutional set-up including the European Parliament. This development wouldbe complemented by the on-going institutional retrofitting with the Six-Pack and the Two-Pack, thebanking union and the drive for a genuine EMU in order to create common solutions to ourinterdependencies and to strike a balance between necessary economic and social policy decisions.In the current debate on these reforms there were two schools of thought: one old national 19thcentury school about the uniqueness of the nation state which he would call 'sovereign nostalgia'and another school which he would call an old-style federalist school according to which MemberStates should 'go the way of the dinosaurs'. Mr COX said he believed that Member States were stillkey mobilisers of identity and that Europe could not be built in opposition to a Member State.Neither old-style sovereignty nor old-style federalism could present a solution but differentiatedintegration would be the future which would not be unique for the United Kingdom. This new set ofbanking union countries would develop into the 'new normal' as asymmetries could no longer beignored. He closed with a reference to Thomas JEFFERSON, whereby any government had to havethe consent of the people to work properly and this had to be fought for. Output legitimacy couldnot be left out. The EU and its Member States had to deliver benefits to its citizens.As second keynote speaker, Mr Andrew DUFF, Member of the Committee on ConstitutionalAffairs of the European Parliament and rapporteur on improving the practical arrangements for theholding of the European elections in 2014, qualified himself as a 'new-style federalist' in Mr COX'sparlance. He said that a point could come where falling turnout would jeopardise the legitimacy ofParliaments and their representative capability and accountability. Based on this assumption theEuropean Parliament had tried to change the electoral procedures for the European elections tomake them more attractive but in the last five years all attempts to do so had failed. Therefore, therewould not be any transnational lists, it would not be assured that candidates could stand for electionin more than one Member State and elections would not take place on one single day. At least theEuropean Parliament had succeeded in bringing forward the timing of the elections by a fortnight tothe end of May, so that the European Parliament could play its role in the nomination process of thenew Commission President, and in simplifying the organisation of the European elections forcitizens living in another Member State than their own to participate and stand for the Europeanelections 2014. He also pointed out that in order to permit European parties to campaign, a politicalagreement on the reform of the statute of European parties should be reached.Currently, European parties remained weak in trying to drive the policy process of EU politics andfell short of what was required, Mr DUFF continued. According to him, with some exceptionsnational parties largely failed to embrace European politics and the links between national andEuropean parties needed to be strengthened. Emblems and names of European parties shouldappear on the ballot paper and TV broadcasts from European parties on public channels should bemade possible. Other ways to bring the elections to life for the citizens would be putting in placeclear and transparent selection procedures, to conclude them in good time before the elections andto nominate 'champions' or leaders of the campaigns, not only for the President of the Commissionbut for the much broader range of appointments taking place next year.In this regard the Lisbon Treaty was quite helpful since article 17 (7) TEU clarified the procedureon the nomination of the candidate for the Presidency of the Commission by the European Councilin that it should take into account the European elections and have appropriate consultations with7
the European Parliament and parties. The current President of the European Council, Herman VANROMPUY, would become theinformateur,looking for a majority leader in the EuropeanParliament. If the European Parliament rejected the candidate, a new candidate had to be presentedwithin one month. Mr DUFF said that if that experiment worked it would strengthen the arm of thePresident-elect of the Commission when appointing the other members of the EuropeanCommission which would be submitted to hearings in the European Parliament in September orOctober next year and, after a final vote of approval in the European Parliament, could take officeas the new Commission on 1 November next year.In the following debate 13 speakers took the floor. Mr Damir MATELJAN (S&D), CroatianHrvatski Sabor,drew on the experience of the first election of Members of the European Parliamentin his country last year by saying that citizens still failed to understand the role of the EuropeanParliament and that therefore more information on this had to be made available. Ms AgnieszkaPOMASKA (EPP), PolishSejm,added that Polish people were pro-European but paradoxicallyfailed to turn up for the European elections.Several parliamentarians like Mr António RODRIGUES (EPP), PortugueseAssembleia daRepublica,claimed that citizens were less interested in the EU but wanted to see solidarity andpositive results for their lives. Mr Paolo TANCREDI (EPP), ItalianCamera dei Deputati,said thatcitizens' trust was suffering because of the inability of the institutions to tackle the crisis. MrEpameinondas MARIAS (Non-affiliated), GreekVouli ton Ellinon,blamed the Troika for goingagainst the people's interests and Mr Ľuboš BLAHA (S&D), SlovakNarodna rada,specified thatthose who were disadvantaged in society had the impression that they had to pay for theconsolidation of banks, the economy and sovereign debts and that therefore they did not regardEurope as their home. Ms Ana Catarina MENDES (S&D), PortugueseAssembleia da Republica,believed that the dwindling trust in European politics resulted from growing nationalism, hardausterity measures and fears about immigration. According to her, the appearance of anti-Europeanparties heralded a Eurosceptic wave.Other speakers, like Mr Philippe MAHOUX (S&D), BelgianChambre des Représentants,and MsAxelle LEMAIRE (S&D), FrenchAssemblée nationale,said that very important political decisionswere at stake in the next European elections and that the message had to put across to the voters thatthe elections were politically significant and that they should vote along political lines. MsLEMAIRE pointed out that parties had a crucial responsibility for setting up their own programmesfor the European elections and for nominating their candidates for the post of President of theEuropean Commission. Under these conditions the Heads of State and Government assembled inthe European Council could not do anything other than to accept the voters' choice. Ms TinekeSTRIK (Greens/EFA), DutchEerste Kamer,asked for more concrete proposals concerning nationalParliaments' activities on raising voter turnout.Mr William CASH (ECR), UKHouse of Commons,deplored the democratic crisis which in hisview existed because European elections challenged the fundamental point that nationalParliaments were granted the inherent powers from voters.Mr Stefan SCHENNACH (S&D), AustrianBundesrat,claimed that the Lisbon Treaty had renderedthe European Union more democratic but that the financial and economic crisis and the Troikaimposed austerity measures and their undesired social consequences had undermined the role ofParliaments; consequently neo-liberal ideas should be abandoned by Parliaments and the fightagainst youth unemployment should be put at centre stage.In his replies Mr COX agreed with speakers that a politicisation of the European elections wasneeded as the contest of political ideas sharpened the political debate and that the nominationprocess of the next President of the European Commission could be one element to make differentpolitical concepts more visible. National Parliaments could help by not abandoning the campaign to8
those who would spread misinformation. The clash of ideas and room for dissenting opinions had tobe legitimised in European elections as a valid part of any electoral contest. He also noted that evenwhen a country was able to exit the Troika programme, the situation would have permanentlychanged from before since with the new Six-Pack and Two-Pack rules, fiscal consolidation was theonly way back to more sovereign exercise of governmental and parliamentary powers.In his answers Mr DUFF highlighted the importance of European elections by saying that if he wasa citizen of a Troika programme country he would line up at dawn at the polling station to cast hisvote for the European Parliament elections because such a lot was at stake: the budget, fiscalconsolidation, immigration, enlargement as well as sharing solidarity across national borders. In hisview the crisis showed not so much a democratic deficit but more a deficit of a clearly accountablegovernment. He described the role of the European Parliament in this crisis as being agile, beingfrequently ahead of the curve and as seeking to serve the common interest of states and citizens.Replying to the question of Ms STRIK, Mr DUFF proposed to turn national European affairscommittees into a platform for European discussions by questioning national political leaders ontheir EU policies in televised debates. National Parliaments could also invite Members of theEuropean Parliament to speak at the tribune, such as in the DutchTweede Kamer,and to explaintheir political decisions which could enhance the accountability of Members of the EuropeanParliament. Looking further ahead, Mr DUFF remarked that the Commission also had a role to playand that the promised publication of the ideas of the President of the Commission, Mr BARROSO,on the future of Europe would enliven the election campaign and the debate on the future ofEurope.5. 'Parliamentary diplomacy – the EP-Ukraine – a case study'Presentation by Mr Pat COX, former President of the European ParliamentMr Pat COX, former President of the European Parliament, gave a detailed account of themonitoring mission to Ukraine conferred upon him and Mr Aleksander KWAŚNIEWSKI, formerPresident of the Republic of Poland, by the European Parliament in May 2012. He reported thatsince then, they had undertaken 23 mission visits to Ukraine, spending an equivalent of 12 fullworking weeks in the country during which the Ukrainian authorities opened all doors and archivesto them.In the run up to the Eastern Partnership summit Ukraine was at a crossroads in its history. Thecountry had to decide whether to turn towards Russia or towards Europe. Mr COX recalled thatthree sets of conditions linked to electoral reforms, justice reforms and collective justice had beenset by the European Union for the signing of any partnership agreement. The old-system mentalityof the 'homosovieticus'still prevailed but noted the new code for criminal procedures adopted in2012 as significant progress since a reduction of 35,000 people in pre-trial detention had beenachieved. On the other hand, the Russian presence in Ukraine remained important culturally,historically and linguistically. The high economic interdependence with Russia was illustrated bythe fact that 40 % of Ukrainian businesses exported to Russia while the recent closure of theborders by Russia, meant as a warning for Ukraine not to turn towards Europe, had had an adverseeffect: Ukrainians now felt more Ukrainian.Mr COX reported that at the beginning of their mission four former ministers were in prison,however, three have since been pardoned. As to the situation of the former Ukrainian PrimeMinister, Ms Yulia TYMOSHENKO, Mr COX pointed out that she was still hospitalised and undermedical treatment by German doctors; that three surveillance cameras, previously monitoring herroom day and night, had been removed; that male guards had been replaced by women; and that atax case brought against her had been postponed 22 times due to her state of health. Mr COXrecalled that the European Court for Human Rights had ruled her pre-trial detention as illegal beforethe conviction but that the "gas" case against her was still upheld. Due to her ill health the missionhad delivered an appeal to the President of Ukraine at the beginning of October to release or pardon9
her so she could travel to Berlin for medical treatment. Positive signals in principle had beenreceived. However, Ukraine's President had preferred to submit to the Ukrainian parliament ageneral discharge law to allow medical treatment abroad than give a presidential pardon. Thiswould have been the shortest and clearest way. The difficulty in this was that it was designed not asa law for one person of course but potentially for all prisoners and so contained all sorts of clausesabout detention and extraterritorial effect. He stated that it was very clear that any of the EuropeanUnion states would underwrite the selective justice of which it had complained by agreeing to sendMs TYMOSHENKO when she was cured directly back to prison in respect of a contested juridicalprocedure. Despite positive developments, overall Ukraine was still not in compliance with theconditions set by the European Union.In a brief but lively debate 10 speakers took the floor. Responding first, Mr Hryhoriy NEMYRIA,Chairman of the Committee on European Integration of the UkrainianVerkhovna Rada,agreedwith Mr COX that Ukraine had to make its choice between an agreement with the EU or theimprisonment of politicians; Ukraine still had to prove whether there was a permanent cessation inpolitically motivated legal actions.Lord David HANNAY OF CHISWICK (Non-affiliated), UKHouse of Lords,welcomed themonitoring mission and its work and stated that in principle the European Union could not proceedto a signature with Ukraine to the detriment of its own values. All of the conditions had to be metbeforehand, heinsisted, while Mr Andrzej GAŁAŻEWSKI (EPP), PolishSejm,explained that inorder to support Ukraine's independence from Russia the accession agreement should be signednow. Mr Averof NEOFYTOU (EPP), CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon,also gave his support for thelikely signing of the agreement with Ukraine. Ms Vilija ALEKNAITĖ ABRAMIKIENĖ (EPP),LithuanianSeimas,underlined the importance of the signing of the association agreement withUkraine as it would open the European Union's view to Russia as well. Mr Herman DE CROO(ALDE), BelgianChambre des Représentants,suggested that COSAC should discuss how theEuropean Union positioned itself towards Russia. Other contributions addressed the question ofelectoral reform (Mr Jordi XUCLÁ I COSTA (ALDE), SpanishCongreso de los Diputados)andthe provision of adequate funding for the Eastern Neighbourhood Policy in the multi-annualfinancial framework (Mr Ivan STEFANEC (EPP), SlovakNarodna rada).In his reply Mr COX highlighted that the European Union needed a coherent strategy for allEuropean Neighbourhood countries. He reiterated that the monitoring mission wanted the dealconcerning Ms TYMOSHENKO's release and the preservation of Europe's values at the same time.Whether Ukraine signed up to the deal and the agreement or not, the country would go through hardtimes, Mr COX explained: Ukraine needed the IMF facility to balance its payments which was inprinciple agreed - and then the EU might follow - but the administration in Kiev would still beaiming at changing the IMF terms and conditions. He welcomed Mr DE CROO's idea to discussEU-Russia relations in more depth. Concerning the electoral reforms Mr COX answered that MrKWAŚNIEWSKI and himself were informed about the ongoing dialogue with the VeniceCommission and that they respected its integrity.6. 'Implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy'Keynote speakers: Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-Presidentof the European Commission responsiblefor Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration, and Ms Pervenche BERÈS, Chair of theCommittee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European ParliamentOn the occasion of the L COSAC plenary meeting, Vice-President of the European CommissionMrMaroš ŠEFČOVIČ first referred to the significance of the COSAC as a permanent frameworkfor interparliamentary cooperation and parliamentary control in EU affairs and welcomed thecommitment of the Parliaments to ensure democratic legitimacy and accountability.
10
Turning to theEurope 2020Strategy Mr ŠEFČOVIČ noted that it had been launched by theCommission as the EU’s integrated strategy to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Theeconomic crisis had shown the interdependence of European economies, especially in the euro area,and proved the need for effective coordination in order to avoid spill-over effects from bad decisionmaking in one country to other countries. In that regard, the European Semester was designed towork as a tool to detect inconsistencies and emerging imbalances and to support the implementationof theEurope 2020Strategy. It would also provide opportunities for discussions with nationalParliaments and the European Parliament and ensure that national reforms carried out underEurope2020were more effective. Mr ŠEFČOVIČ referred to the five areas that had become a reformpriority across the EU: a) a differentiated growth friendly fiscal consolidation, b) the restoration oflending to the real economy, c) the promotion of growth and competitiveness, d) tacklingunemployment and reforming labour markets, and e) the modernisation of public administrations.Mr ŠEFČOVIČ underlined the fact that ambitious reform programmesin several Member Stateshad started to bring positive results. Indicators showed signs of a modest recovery. But overcomingthe crisis would require a continuous focus on reform priorities, as well as rapid implementation ofdecisions concerning the boosting of employment. In order to tackle unemployment, reforms hadbeen carried out to improve the resilience and flexibility of labour markets, but it would take timeto deliver results. For that reason, he stated that there would be additional funding from the multi-annual financial framework to help the most affected Member States deal with youthunemployment.Concerning the significant social cost of high unemployment levels, he referred to theCommunication on the Strengthening of the Social Dimension of the EMU through which theCommission stressed the importance of making sure that the rules put in place to deepencoordination and cooperation on economic governance took into account the social impact. TheEmployment Package, the White Paper on Pensions and the Youth Employment Package wereamong the most recent initiatives presented by the Commission to support national reform efforts.Moreover, the performance of education and training systems and their labour market relevance hadbeen highlighted as one of the key issues that needed to be addressed.Mr ŠEFČOVIČ stressed that the ICT sector was expected to be a means of stimulating economicgrowth and job creation. He regretted that many Member States had taken the drastic approach ofslashing their R&D budgets in order to get their finances under control. In fact the EuropeanCouncil clearly stated that investment in innovation fuelled productivity and growth and MemberStates that had continued to invest in it had fared better in the crisis. Progress had been made by thelaunching of measures such as the unitary patent, the European passport for venture capital fundsand Horizon 2020. On the other hand the crisis had hampered efforts to reach the so called 20-20-20 targets. Additionally, the Commission estimated that implementation of individual energyefficiency measures, as well as the potential from renewable energy sector development would leadto significant job creation, bearing in mind always that Europe’s overall competitiveness had to beguaranteed.He further analysed the steps that should be taken so as to achieve the goals of theEurope 2020Strategy, starting with the coordination of budgetary and structural policies under the EuropeanSemester. He also noted the significance of strengthening fiscal monitoring in the Eurozone withthe Two-Pack process, underlining the fact that national Parliaments retained their full rights in thenational budgetary process while the Commission’s role would be to bring a more Europeanperspective to the national debates. Moreover, the 2014 Annual Growth Survey (AGS), to bepresented this November, would set out the broad economic and social priorities of the EU for thefollowing year and would launch the 2014 European Semester of economic policy coordination.The AGS would also launch the consultation process with national and European parliamentarianswhich would be a valuable input to the Spring 2014European Council. Mr ŠEFČOVIČ urged theparliamentarians to intensify the dialogue with the Commission on the European Semester and to11
organise 'Europe Days' within their respective Parliaments as had been suggested by the IrishSpeaker.In concluding, he noted that theEurope 2020Strategy was a long term process that committed all28 Member States to act regardless of who is in power. In that regard, the involvement ofParliaments would be crucial, provide a unique link between policy makers and public and ensurethat the decisions taken at EU level had a real and positive impact on citizens.In her intervention, Ms Pervenche BERÈS,European Parliament,expressed her delight atparticipating in the L COSAC Plenary, since she was one of the people involved in its creation backin 1989. She identified the open method of coordination as the reason for failure of the Lisbonstrategy. Moreover, no realisation of the potential synergy between the EU budget and nationalbudgets for the implementation of this strategy tool had been made. It was from this failure that theCommission proposed the EU 2020 strategy. According to Ms BERÈS, the only way for thisstrategy to succeed was by becoming the point of reference in all EU policies. The open method ofcoordination was substituted by the European Semester, an instrument that could lead to thecoordination of economic policies and the reduction of macroeconomic imbalances.Ms BERÈS noted that since the presentation of theEurope 2020strategy the flagship initiatives hadnot had the desired effect. At the same time the economic crisis led to practices that averted adeterioration in the public finances. The introduction of the Six-Pack, Two-Pack and the TSCG hadin a way completed the economic and budgetary dimension of the EMU, but the social dimensionwas still unanswered. The EU 2020 strategy had not changed the excessive emphasis on nominalconvergence. At the same time, the crisis had exacerbated the flaws in the EMU architecture,illustrated by the widening of divergences in economic performance observed already in 2005. TheEuropean Commission, in its report on the progress of the strategy, admitted that the commitmentsmade by Member States were insufficient, but none had been called upon as part of the country-specific recommendations (CSR) to show more ambition in terms of employment creation and thefight against poverty. Austerity policies, introduced by the Troika, could also be regarded as anobstacle to the achievement ofEurope 2020goals. In peripheral countries, where unemploymentand poverty rates had reached a high level, social policies were subjected to budget cuts. The newgovernance framework institutionalized structural distortion characterized by the preponderance ofeconomic indicators and overlooking the social dimension. In the best case, the social objectives oftheEurope 2020strategy were perceived as a way to compensate or to make the socialconsequences of austerity policies less painful.Ms BERÈS proposed that the EU should a) look at social and economic objectives as being ofequal importance, b) consider all objectives of the strategy to be part of a more balanced structurethat would allow the social dialogue on a national and European level to play a more important role,c) have the EU budget that underpinned such a strategy and create own resources to finance thatbudget, d) recognise the European Parliament had a role as co-legislator on the AGS, and e) involvenational Parliaments in the adoption of the NRP.Ms BERÈS firmly supported the need to deepen the EMU by strengthening the coordination ofnational policies while giving the Eurozone the budgetary capacity to absorb within itself anyasymmetric shocks. In that regard the EU should explore possibilities, such as the harmonization ofthe definition of a common corporate tax, possible revenues from a transaction tax and thedevelopment of a mechanism of solidarity between Member States on the financing of a minimumunemployment compensation.In conclusion Ms BERÈS noted that unless theEurope 2020objectives became an absolute prioritythe Strategy would fail. The crisis would not be to blame for such a failure as it had already startedby 2010. Meeting the challenges of diversity and balancing the interdependence between theperiphery and central European countries should be regarded as a priority. She suggested that the12
EU and the Eurozone should perceive the Eurozone as a space of economic and social interaction.The democratic legitimacy should be reinforced so that necessary measures for the accomplishmentof theEurope 2020Strategy were accepted by citizens. It would also require the EuropeanParliament to adapt its structure to the configuration of the euro area. If these challenges were met,then the European Union would emerge stronger from the current crisis and citizens would turntheir back on extremist and populist rhetoric.In the debate that followed 10 speakers took the floor. Mr René LEEGTE (ALDE), DutchTweedeKamer,argued that COSAC should focus on best practices and noted the importance of the secondyellow card raised on the EPPO proposal. Both speakers agreed on the importance of best practices.MrŠEFČOVIČ cited ways of active cooperation between parliaments and EU institutions such asEuropean Days and informal break up session, while Ms BERÈS commented that best practiceswere not enough, especially due to the interdependence of internal policies. Baroness JeanCORSTON (S&D), UKHouse of Lords,asked the speakers to comment on food waste and youthunemployment, whereasMr Slaven RADUNOVIĆ (Non-affiliated),MontenegroSkupština,referred to the goals of theEurope 2020Strategy relevant to education. Ms BERÈS noted that theEuropean Parliament was looking to ensure that the food waste issue was taken into account inlegislation and Mr ŠEFČOVIČ committed to share the views of the relevant working group withthe Parliaments. On youth unemployment and education Ms BERÈS considered the YouthGuarantee as a positive development and described education as a long term investment that shouldnot be submitted to restrictions. On the other hand Mr ŠEFČOVIČ urged national Parliaments toscrutinise their governments on their schemes for the introduction of Youth Guarantee and calledon the candidate countries to take advantage of policies such as theEurope 2020Strategy beforejoining the EU. He also regrettably noted the immense divergence in spending level in R&D amongMember States. On the comment of Mr Jozo RADOŠ (ALDE), CroatianHrvatski Sabor,on theinvolvement of national Parliaments in the debate onEurope 2020Strategy and the harmonisationof NRP to the goals set by the strategy, Ms BERÈS underlined that EU and national budgets mustbe complementary to produce results. Mr Konstantinos MOUSOUROULIS (EPP), GreekVouli tonEllinon,referring to the response to the crisis asked whether there should be an amendment oncertain points of theEurope 2020Strategy such as ensuring equal opportunities in investment, sincegreat divergence between North and South were observed (2% interest rate in the North incomparison to 10% in the South). Mr Michael CONNARTY (S&D), UKHouse of Commons,questioned why a Member State should give up its individual economic programme and opt for a“soviet planned economy”. Mr Herman DE CROO (ALDE), BelgianChambre des Représentants,raised several questions concerning labour costs, competitiveness, energy prices, education and lackof language skills. Ms BERÈS answered that reducing labour costs would be a false approach ascompared to low wage countries, labour cost would always be higher in Europe, so the social modelwould be more appropriate for the EU. Concerning education, Ms BERÈS noted that recognisingqualifications was an issue that EU was trying to address. MrŠEFČOVIČin commenting on theoverall response to the crisis, noted, taking into account the fact that the EU was not aware of thelevel of interdependence of Member State economies and did not have adequate instruments inplace, that the EU's reaction was sufficient and democratically approved and demonstratedsignificant solidarity amongst Member States. Finally, Ms Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ (S&D),European Parliament,raised the issue of a balanced economic and social dimension and theimportance of financing social investments and ensuring sustainable growth. She also requested thesetting up of a study on the impact of immigration on social systems. Mr Edmund WITTBRODT,PolishSenat,requested the earlier submission of staff working documents on the EuropeanSemester to national Parliaments.7. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSACMr AUŠTREVIČIUS,LithuanianSeimas,informed the conference that the Presidential Troika ofCOSAC had followed the agreed process for the filling of the post of the Permanent Member ofCOSAC Secretariat during which four highly qualified candidates had been interviewed. He13
thanked the Parliaments who had submitted their candidates and announced that the candidacy ofMs Christiana FRYDA had been chosen unanimously by the Presidential Troika of COSAC for theperiod 2014-2015. He also thanked Ms Libby KURIEN, the outgoing Permanent Member, for herwork over the last two years.Mr AUŠTREVIČIUS,LithuanianSeimas,stated that the Lithuanian Presidency had submitted thefirst draft of the Contribution and Conclusions in early October 2013 and the second draft on 23October 2013. Since then the Presidency had received and taken on board amendments fromnational Parliaments and the European Parliament on both documents. Following a debate, a furtheramended text of the Contribution and Conclusions of the L COSAC was agreed by consensus, withthe abstention of the DutchTweede Kamer.- Briefing on the first meeting of the COSAC Women's Forum -Mr KIRKILAS informed the plenary that that morning the COSAC Women's Forum had beenestablished. H. E. Loreta GRAUŻINIENĖ, Speaker of the LithuanianSeimas,had welcomed theforum. Ms Bariza KHIARI, Vice-President of the FrenchSénat,and Ms Virginija LANGBAKK,Director of the European Institute for Gender Equality, had given key note speeches. The meetinghad been chaired byProf Marija Aušrinė PAVILIONIENĖ (S&D), LithuanianSeimas,who hadbeen appointed the coordinator of the COSAC Women's Forum. The forum had adopted aDeclaration on the Founding of the COSAC Women's Forum.Prof PAVILIONIENĖ briefed the plenary on the outcome of the meeting.8. 'Democratic Legitimacy in the EU and the role of EU Parliaments'Keynote speakers: Ms Eva Kjer HANSEN, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the DanishFolketing,Mr Dominic HANNIGAN, Chair of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs ofthe IrishHouses of the Oireachtas,and Mr Hans-Gert PÖTTERING, former President of theEuropean Parliament, Member of the European ParliamentMs Eva Kjer HANSEN, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the DanishFolketingled offthe debate. She said that after 50 meetings of COSAC it was time to look back but also to see if itsimpact could be enhanced in the future. She noted that harsh austerity measures in some countrieshad led to a disillusionment of their citizens and support for the EU was declining at a time whenthe Union's powers were expanding. Europe needed a democratic framework which matched theUnion's increased role and powers in relation to economic governance. Draft national budgets wereexamined in the Union before they were passed by the respective national Parliaments whiledecisions about national budgets remained at the heart of national parliamentary democracy. TheEuropean Parliament while important and effective did not fill the gap in economic and financialmatters. However, while she believed that there was no need for any new institutions there was aneed for new tools for national Parliaments. The DanishFolketinghad introduced a "NationalSemester" which allowed the DanishFolketingto scrutinise the Danish Government before theDanish position was fixed and before the Commission launched the Annual Growth Survey, beforethey submitted their National Reform Plan and before the Council debate on the Country SpecificRecommendations. There was also a need to reinforce political dialogue by allowing nationalParliaments the right to contribute to legislation by giving them a right of initiative through politicalcontributions. This could be done through a political commitment from the Commission rather thanby amending the Treaty. She called on colleagues to use written enquiries as an instrument morefrequently and spoke against the organisation of new large scale interparliamentary conferences andoffered instead the idea on parliamentary clusters similar to the one held in the DanishFolketinginOctober about free movement of workers and social welfare issues.Mr Dominic HANNIGAN, Chair of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs of the IrishHouses of the Oireachtas,spoke about the decline in voter turnout for the EP elections; the fact that14
some candidates were unknown due to the list system and the fact that unknown substitutes couldreplace an elected members of the European Parliament as factors in this regard. This decline washappening at a time when the European Parliament was gaining power. He noted a disconnectioncaused by increased intergovernmentalism in economic policy. He said some trust had beenregained with the Commission proposals in relation to the election of the Commission Presidentand the increased recognition of European political parties. He believed that Treaty change wouldnot be required, for example, to ban national party logos from the EP elections, to require a certainpercentage of political literature to refer to EU matters or to replace members of the EuropeanParliament with a by-election rather than with substitutes. The role of national Parliaments neededto be made more effective, for example, Mr HANNIGAN would be organising a debate with hiscommittee and stakeholders on the Commission's proposal on the Social Dimension which hehoped would provide material for a political contribution on this important policy issue. Thecontent and timing of the Commission's responses to 'yellow cards' needed to be reviewed and hehoped that the Commission would appear more frequently before committees of nationalParliaments. He agreed with the right of initiative mentioned in the COSAC XLIX report but alsosaw the need to optimise the parliamentary architecture of oversight. From his personal experiencehe thought that the first Interparliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance ofthe European Union had been overtly conflictual in the way it had operated. A strong functioningcentral secretariat was needed to support national Parliaments in their work but there was no needfor another chamber or new institutionMember of the European Parliament Mr Hans-Gert PÖTTERING, Former President of theEuropean Parliament, said that what was important was that the EU as a complex communityshould be able to act and also have a democratic anchor. He believed that the national Parliamentsand the European Parliament all served democracy but at different levels. The role of nationalParliaments was to scrutinise their own governments. He also believed that intergovernmentalismshould not become the trend and that the German Constitutional Court was unduly critical of theEU which was, in effect,sui generis.He thought that the right of initiative for national Parliamentsshould be debated. The EP itself had gained the right of initiative in 1999 when it had negotiated itwith the incoming Prodi Commission. He therefore believed that existing powers and provisionsshould be used more fully and that no new institutions were required.Lord BOSWELL (Non-affiliated), Chairman of the European Union Select Committee, House ofLords of the United Kingdom was first to respond. He noted the complementary roles of thenational Parliaments and the EP. He thanked the Presidency for organising the firstInterparliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance of the European Union andhe said that his committee had identified Troika imposed austerity measures as a gap in democraticlegitimacy given that no Parliaments were involved in devising them. He said that the "fine" wordsof conferences should not be disconnected from the everyday concerns of citizens.There were 27 contributions in the debate which followed. Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK (EPP),HungarianOrszággyűlés,warned of the need to maintain the institutional balance and that aEurozone committee in the EP could negatively affect that balance. He noted with satisfaction thefirst Hungarian reasoned opinion that had recently been issued. Mr Bo BERNHARDSSON (S&D),SwedishRiksdag,noted that proposals with a far reaching impact could not be rushed and neededdiscussion. The Commission had been short on explaining its motivation for certain proposals. MsRiitta MYLLER (S&D), FinnishEduskunta,agreed with the general tone of the debate that no newinstitutions were needed.Mr Jakob PRESEČNIK (EPP), SlovenianDrţavni zbor,noted that incontrast to the intentions of the Lisbon Treaty the powers of national Parliaments would decrease ifthe EMU developed as foreseen but that citizen dissatisfaction was always felt in nationalParliaments. He questioned if the mushrooming of conferences was necessary given that COSAChad a broad agenda which could deal with such issues and he supported the idea that there shouldbe no new institutions. Mr Ioannis TRAGAKIS (EPP), GreekVouli ton Ellinon,urged nationalParliaments and the European Parliament to find ways to intensify and structure their cooperation in15
a constructive way, such as in the case of the co-organization of the Interparliamentary Conferenceon the Economic and Financial Governance of the European Union which had yet to prove that itwas indeed cooperation in essence.Ms Ingrid ANTIČEVIĆ MARINOVIĆ (S&D), CroatianHrvatski Sabor,said citizens did notbelieve that the EU was working in their favour and wanted to know what their national memberswould do to help them. Mr Luis FAZENDA (GUE/NGL), PortugueseAssembleia da Republica,noted that while the current crisis required the TSCG taking budget power from nationalParliaments, this was not a good idea while Ms Paola CARINELLI (Non-affiliated),Camera deiDeputati,observed that up to one third of the next EP could be euro-sceptic in nature.Mr Simon SUTOUR (S&D), FrenchSénat,said that the Commission needed to wake up to the useof 'yellow cards' and involve national Parliaments at an earlier stage in the legislative process. Hefully agreed with the concept of a 'green card' and the right of initiative. Mr Bill CASH (Non-affiliated), UKHouse of Commons,was worried that the EU was sleep walking into chaos. Citizensbelieved in their national governments and the EU was becoming dysfunctional - it needed torelocate powers to national Parliaments and not the EP. Mr Andrew DUFF (ALDE),EuropeanParliament,said that attacking the European Parliament put COSAC in denial. He said thesovereignty of states was exercised in the Council and the sovereignty of people in the EuropeanParliament. National Parliaments gave legitimacy to governments and while they were not part ofthe Union's legislative process they could request legislative proposals through their governments inCouncil. It was essential, however, that the Commission retained the right of initiative i.e. todetermine the common intent among the competing needs of the Member States. Mr KonstantinosTRIANTAFYLLOS (S&D), GreekVouli ton Ellinon,Mr Andrzej GAŁAŻEWSKI (EPP), PolishSejm,and Mr Christos MESSIS (GUE/NGL), CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon,argued for moretransparency noting that the national Parliaments could play a role in the institutional balance andwere the guarantors of democracy and that more in-depth discussion of certain issues was required.Mr Mehmet TEKELIOĞLU (EPP observer party), TurkishBüyük Millet Meclisi,welcomed theopening by the Lithuanian Presidency of Chapter 22 on Regional Policy - the first in 3 years. MrHerman DE CROO, BelgianChambre des Représentants,stated that it would help if voting in theEuropean Parliament elections was made mandatory and if there could be broader constituencies forthe elections. Mr Michael CONNARTY (S&D), UKHouse of Commons,stated that no Treatychanges were required and EP powers had increased already while its mandate had declined. Hefavoured an interparliamentary conference model along the lines of the Parliamentary Group onHuman Trafficking of which he was a member. Ms Pervenche BERÈS (S&D),EuropeanParliament,was of the view that each had to play their own role and that COSAC was forcooperation and not rivalry. She defended the community method and said that the EP improvedlegislation.In response and throughout the debate the keynote speakers made the following observations. MsEva Kjer HANSEN said that Parliaments needed to stick together, but that the role of nationalParliaments had been forgotten and they needed more tools. She agreed with more in-depthdiscussion on certain issues and in relation to Turkey noted that it required progress from both sidesto move forward. Mr Dominic HANNIGAN said that the Interparliamentary Conference onEconomic and Financial Governance of the European Union was open to all even those who did notsign the Stability Treaty and that this added value to it. He noted the need for a discussion on theSocial Dimension and asked what the Commission reaction would be if some of the indicators werenot met. He asked that national Parliaments be given a role in promoting youth guarantee schemes.He noted that Ireland would exit its bailout programme but that few people realised the impact ofthe European Semester and the CSR. In this regard there was a need for continuity of discussionacross COSAC meetings with room, of course, for new agenda items. Mr Hans-Gert PÖTTERINGreiterated his view that no new institutions were needed but that for the Eurozone it was possibletoday to consult all Member States through the EP. The CFSP/CSDP area needed to be improved to16
allow Member States to act more quickly; ERASMUS was the soul of Europe allowing students toexchange ideas etc.9. 'Digital Agenda: challenges and perspectives'Keynote speaker: Mr Rudolf Peter ROY, Head of division for Security Policy and Sanctions of theEuropean External Action ServiceCyber securityMr Rudolf Peter ROY, Head of the Division for Security Policy and Sanctions, European ExternalAction Service, emphasised that information and communication technology-related activitiesaccounted for more than 20 % of GDP growth in the world’s major economies over the last fiveyears. The Internet was already contributing up to 8 % to GDP in some of the G-20 economies.There were 2.4 billion Internet users in the world in 2013 and this number would double by 2020.He noted that cyberspace provided access to education, promoted freedom of speech, connectedpeople worldwide and enabled essential services. It also worked as a crucial catalyst for achievingthe Millennium Development Goals. While the digital world brought enormous benefits, it was alsovulnerable.On 5 February 2013 the College of Commissioners adopted the EU Cyber Security Strategy. TheStrategy comprised internal market, home affairs and Common Foreign and Security Policy anglesof cyberspace issues. It addressed how Member States can streamline their efforts in this field andwhat EU institutions and agencies could do in order to assist them. It also sought to improvehorizontal cooperation between different policy areas in the EU. The strategy stressed that forcyberspace to remain open and free the EU's core values, norms and principles that were upheldoffline must also apply online. Fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law needed to beprotected in cyberspace globally. Mr ROY cautioned that, when it came to national level, there wasstill work to be done in order to achieve EU wide cyber resilience.In its resolution of 12 September 2013 the European Parliament welcomed the Strategy and stressedthat the Internet and cyberspace was of increasing and paramount importance for political,economic and societal transactions not only within the Union but also in relation to other actorsaround the world.Mr ROY elaborated on the three key elements of the external dimension of the Strategy. The firstelement and a priority for EU international engagement in cyber issues was to promote cyberspaceas an area of freedom and fundamental rights. Firstly, on the question of surveillance of mass dataflows the EU and the US were conducting continuous consultations in order to discuss the relateddata protection issues. These actions should result in proposals for better protection of privacy inthe digital age. Secondly, the allegations of spying on the diplomatic premises or officials of the EUand its MS raised an issue of trust. In his opinion, the Heads of State and Government of the EUdelivered a clear message on both aspects in the statement annexed to the Conclusions of the 24-25October European Council. He expressed hope that the discussion around these issues would lead,in the end, to more awareness and transparency.The second element highlighted by Mr ROY was the need to preserve cyberspace by agreeingwhich actions were allowed and which were not. The third element was to ensure that trust andconfidence in information and communication technology depended on knowledge and capacity.He concluded by saying that the EU would work on a model which would leverage best practices inglobal cyber security capacity building of countries and of the private sector. The EU would alsolook for synergies across many development areas to improve governance, ensure respect forhuman rights, build infrastructure and provide basic education.
17
Benefits for businessKeynote speaker: Mr Ilja LAURS, Chief Executive Officer of GetJar, winner of “EuropeanManager of the Year 2011 Award”, presented by the European Business Press (EBP)Mr Ilja LAURS, Chief Executive Officer of GetJar, winner of “European Manager of the Year 2011Award” presented by the European Business Press, introduced the problems, challenges andopportunities that technological entrepreneurs face in Europe. He stated that Europe lagged behindmassively by world standards for the number of companies who reach the maturity stage ininnovation and sell their shares in an initial public offering (IPO). The European market was small:it represented only 13 % of the global market in IPOs (the US represents 52 % of the market). MrLAURS said Europe was a challenging place for innovating and highlighted four main points. Thefirst point was the lack of education on entrepreneurship, innovative business “start-ups” andunderstanding of the basic business philosophy, principles and models. The second point was strict,inflexible labour regulation, bureaucracy and data/privacy policy which were the reasons whyEurope had become an unfavourable place for new companies to explore new business ideas. Thethird point was working mentality (40 hours per week working time), the rare use of the practice ofissuing share options and other motivation methods, low tolerance to failure, etc. The fourth pointwas that public funding for business was low on efficiency and unfair competition in Europe. Heintroduced “The Manifesto” initiative supported by nine of Europe’s most successful techentrepreneurs. This initiative called for action and gave twenty practical suggestions (education andskills, access to talent, access to capital, data, policy, protection and privacy, thought leadership,etc.), and on how EU institutions and Governments of EU Member States could help tosystematically improve the environment for business in Europe.In the debate which followed, 15 speakers took the floor. A number of speakers explicitlymentioned cyber threats and expressed concern about issues of cyber security and privacy.Respecting the principles of fundamental rights and human rights were also highlighted. It wasmentioned that some cyber defence issues would be addressed during the European Council inDecember. Mr ROY agreed with some speakers who stated that there was overregulation in the areaof the digital market in the EU which restricted its development. The lack of education and trainingwere mentioned as some of the biggest challenges of the digital market. A number of speakersconsidered the digital agenda as the main strategic initiative for helping Europe to overcome thecurrent economic crisis and to improve its competitiveness. Some speakers made specific referenceto the importance of the digital market as a tool to create wealth and achieve a better future forEurope. According to Ms LaimaLiucijaANDRIKIENĖ,European Parliament,the digital agendacould reboot the EU economy: EU GDP was expected to grow by 5 % because of theimplementation of the digital agenda over the next eight years (through investment in informationand communication technologies, the building of capacities and facilitating the development of thecyber economy). Mr LAURS drew attention to the value in the digital market which was beingcreated very quickly. For example, one digital game could generate 2 million dollars profit per day.Ms Axelle LEMAIRE, FrenchAssemblée nationale,suggested finding ways to finance digital toolsnot only from public but also from private funds. Concerning the digital market she noted theexisting discrepancy between the positions of the EU institutions and of the EU Members States.Mr Börje VESTLUND (S&D), SwedishRiksdag,stated that it was important to remember thatthere were groups of people who never used digital services. Mr Jožef HORVAT (EPP), SlovenianDržavni zbor,noted that special attention should be paid to the problems resulting from thefragmentation of the European telecommunication market with more than eight thousand operators.He also pointed out the problems with digital incompatibility, shared use of electronic documentsand the necessity to continue the harmonisation of digital legislation. The participants of the debatementioned a number of important policy areas, for example, public administration, consumerprotection etc. related to the digital market. The significance of freedom of expression wasmentioned as well as importance of preventing hate-guided campaigns in the cyberspace.
18
10. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the L COSACMr AUŠTREVIČIUS,LithuanianSeimas,presented the final draft of the Contribution andConclusions of the L COSAC to the meeting. He reported that the documents had been amendedduring a lively debate in the Chairpersons' meeting held the previous evening. Presenting the draftof the Contribution of the L COSAC, Mr AUŠTREVIČIUS drew attention to articles 1.2 and 7.3and proposed some technical amendments which were accepted.He presented the draft of the Conclusions of the L COSAC. The common amendment proposed bythe SwedishRiksdagand UKHouse of Commonsto point 3.4 was accepted.Hereafter, the conference adopted by consensus the texts of the Contribution and Conclusions ofthe L COSAC as amended. Once translated into all official languages of the EU, the Contributionof the L COSAC will be published in the Official Journal of the EU.Finally, Mr TRAGAKIS, GreekVouli ton Ellinon,said that this Presidential Trio – Ireland,Lithuania and Greece – had cooperated very closely to ensure continuity in the EU agenda. Hestressed that Lithuania and Ireland had conducted their proceedings very successfully and hethanked the LithuanianSeimasand the Chair Mr KIRKILAS for excellent organisation of LCOSAC in Vilnius. Mr TRAGAKIS said that he was looking forward to the continuation of thiscooperation with Trio during the coming 6 months of the Greek Presidency, which would coincidewith the elections of the European Parliament. He invited everyone to Athens for the COSACChairpersons meeting and the LI COSAC plenary meeting.
19