PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2014-15 (1. samling)
EUU Alm.del Bilag 328
Offentligt

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CHAIRPERSONS OF COSAC

Riga, Latvia, 2 February 2015

AGENDA:

1. Welcome address by Ms Ināra MŪRNIECE, Speaker of the

Saeima

of the

Republic of Latvia

Introductory remarks by Ms Lolita ČIGĀNE, Chair of the European Affairs

Committee of the Latvian

Saeima

2. Adoption of the agenda of the Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

3. Procedural and other matters

4. Priorities of the Latvian Presidency of the Council of the European Union and

Prospects for the European Union after the Election of the New European

Commission - keynote speakers: Ms Zanda KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA,

Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of

Latvia, and Mr Frans TIMMERMANS, First Vice-President of the European

Commission for Better Regulation, Interinstitutional Relations, the Rule of Law

and the Charter of Fundamental Rights

5. Eastern Partnership and Challenges Ahead - keynote speakers: Mr Urban

AHLIN, Speaker of the Swedish

Riksdag,

Mr Edgars RINKĒVIČS, Minister for

Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia, and Mr Ostap SEMERAK, First

Deputy Chairman of the Committee on European Integration of the Ukrainian

Verkhova Rada

PROCEEDINGS

IN THE CHAIR: Ms Lolita ČIGĀNE, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the Latvian

Saeima.

1. Welcome address by Ms Ināra MŪRNIECE, Speaker of the

Saeima

of the Republic of

Latvia

Introductory remarks by Ms Lolita ČIGĀNE, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of

the Latvian

Saeima

Ms Ināra MŪRNIECE welcomed the Chairpersons and referred to the Latvian Presidency’s

commitment to the call for more parliamentary involvement in the EU's decision-making. She

mentioned the situation in Ukraine, as dire and grave as never before in the post-World War II era,

and expressed her satisfaction with the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council to continue

economic sanctions and to enlarge the list of targeted persons. She noted that European political

leaders had recognised Russia’s role behind rising armed escalation in the Eastern Ukraine and

pointed out, among others, that the killing of civilians was a war crime and that the EU’s moral

obligation was to maximise all efforts leading to so-called People’s Republics of Donetsk and

Lugansk being called in their real names – terrorist organisations. She urged the EU and its Member

States to put all efforts to support Ukraine that faced not only military aggression, but also so many

socio-economic problems.

Ms Ināra MŪRNIECE identified the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), with its Eastern and

Southern dimensions, as a priority of EU’s external relations. She added that in the Riga Eastern

Partnership Summit, a strong signal reaffirming long-term EU strategic support based on the

differentiation for the neighboring countries should be sent. She concluded by quoting the

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Declaration on the ‘New Narrative for Europe’, presented last year by artists, scientists and

intellectuals: Europe as a political body must deploy fully its “soft power” not only across the

continent, but also beyond its borders to make it a respectful and respected international partner,

promoting a new global model of society based on ethical and sustainable values.

Ms ČIGĀNE welcomed the Chairs to the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC and especially the

Chairs elected during the last year and Mr Malik AZMANI, Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

attending the

COSAC meeting for the first time. The Chair recalled the historical value of the Latvian Saeima’s

main building which had witnessed many events that had proved significant and decisive for Latvia

throughout time. She referred to the Latvian Presidency's clear commitment towards achieving

tangible and durable results, but also noted that the tragic events in Paris, along with the renewed

violence in the East Ukraine and the attacks on civilians in Mariupol, underscored both the

uncertainty of events and the fact that we must be ready for any challenges.

2. Adoption of the agenda of the Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC

Ms ČIGĀNE presented the topics and the keynote speakers of the meeting of the Chairpersons of

COSAC. The agenda of the meeting was adopted without amendment.

3. Procedural and other matters

Ms ČIGĀNE briefed the participants on the results of the Presidential Troika meeting held the

previous day. She first presented the draft programme for the Plenary Meeting of the LIII COSAC,

which would focus on three main issues: the EU Energy Policy; the EU as a global actor: EU Trade

Policy for next five years; Future of the Parliamentary Scrutiny of EU Affairs. Ms ČIGĀNE

informed the participants that the Presidential Troika had decided to support the request of the

Chairpersons of South European Parliaments to include also the topic of security concerns in the

Middle East and North African Regions. The Chair proposed to insert a session on this topic on the

first day. Answering to Mr Philippe MAHOUX, Belgian

Chambre des représentants,

the Chair

clarified that it would be a formal lunch session and that the topic would be addressed also in the

relevant sessions of the upcoming Interparliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and

Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

Mr Edmund WITTBRODT, Polish

Senate,

asked to add the topic of the Eastern Partnership in the

agenda of the meeting of the LIII COSAC. Ms ČIGĀNE pointed out that this subject had already

been included in the COSAC Chairpersons meeting and that it would be addressed also in the

Interparliamentary Conference for the CFSP and CSDP and in the Eastern Partnership Summit,

which would be held in Riga at the end of May. She added that the outcome of the discussions of

the Eastern Partnership Summit would be addressed under the session on the state of play of the

Latvian Presidency during the LIII COSAC meeting and that a reflection on the topic in the final

COSAC documents would be more than welcome.

Ms ČIGĀNE presented the outline of the 23

Bi-annual Report of COSAC, which had been

approved by the Presidential Troika. She announced that the questionnaire would be distributed in

about two weeks' time and that the deadline for the replies would be the 23rd March 2015.

Ms ČIGĀNE then reported on relevant Troika's decisions as regards the letters received by the

Presidency.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The Chair informed the participants that, in response to the letter received from Mr Malik

AZMANI, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

the Troika had

agreed to invite Mr René LEEGTE to report shortly on the informal meeting on the role of national

Parliaments organised by the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

on 19 January in Brussels. She added that, after

that meeting, the Presidency had sent a letter to Mr Timmermans, First Vice-President of the

European Commission for Better Regulation, Interinstitutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the

Charter of Fundamental Rights, suggesting further exploration of how to enhance the political

dialogue, to which Mr TIMMERMANS had already answered.

She also mentioned the letter received from Mr Kalle PALLING, Estonian

Riigikogu,

proposing a

draft for a common statement on current events in Ukraine. The Chair informed that the Troika

supported the initiative and had modified the initial draft, in order to make the statement more in

line with the results of the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council of 29 January 2015. The Chair

gave the floor to Mr PALLING who explained his initiative, particularly referring to the recent

escalation of violence in Eastern Ukraine, and accepted the new formulation. In the absence of any

objection, the common statement was approved.

Mr LEEGTE, Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

who had chaired the informal meeting in Brussels on the role

of national Parliaments, presented the main conclusions of the meeting on the Commission Work

Programme (CWP) and the "yellow card" procedure. In his introduction, Mr LEEGTE mentioned

that national Parliaments were seeking a way to play their role with the instruments provided by the

existing treaties and that they were able to work together with the European Parliament on priorities

to improve the quality of EU policies.

Concerning the CWP, he concluded that national Parliaments should select their priorities and share

them, possibly in the COSAC meetings. To this end, some tools were identified, among which an

overview table of Commission proposals on which national Parliaments could mark their priorities,

and the appointment of a “champion” parliament in charge of leading the follow-up. The table, he

said, should be sent to the European institutions by 1

April. Parliaments could express their

support to prioritising a certain proposal or could withdraw support at any time. He also underlined

the role of the COSAC Secretariat, IPEX and the cooperation with the European Parliament.

Referring to proposals not included in the CWP, Mr LEEGTE underlined the need to consider an

hoc

procedure, suggesting, among others, the use of the meetings of the network of Representatives

in Brussels to identify priorities, the possibility of appointing a "champion" Parliament, as well as

of sharing information.

Concerning the "yellow card" procedure, the Parliaments/Chambers participating in the cluster of

interest meeting had considered forming an informal working group of willing national Parliaments

with a broad mandate to explore the possibility of improving the "yellow card" procedure and of

extending the 8-week period to 12 weeks within the current Treaties. The working group should

present its conclusions to the meeting of the LIII COSAC in Riga. Mr LEEGTE informed that the

Polish Parliament had offered to be the "leader" in the informal initiative on the "yellow card"

procedure and that the Dutch Parliament would send a staff member in order to support the work.

Lord Timothy BOSWELL, Chair of the EU Select Committee of the

House of Lords,

presented his

working paper on the "green card" procedure thanking the Presidency for making the "green card"

one of the topics to be explored in the Bi-annual Report and discussed at the meeting of the LIII

COSAC. He stressed that the "green card" was not a revolutionary procedure, but a modest addition

to the existing political dialogue. He noted that it was not intended to take away the responsibilities

of national Parliaments' Committees for scrutiny or influencing the actions of their own

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Governments in Council, nor to undermine the Commission's right of initiative, nor to challenge the

existing role of the European Parliament, nor to lead to a flood of new legislation, nor to bind

national Parliaments or Governments. He noted that the cluster of interest meeting suggested there

was strong consensus for further exploring the idea of a "green card". Lord BOSWELL suggested a

practical approach, encouraging colleagues to give consideration to issues they would like to be

seen taken forward as a "green card" and share their thoughts with other Parliaments. In this way, at

the COSAC plenary meeting a small number of "popular" proposals could be identified and a first

"green card" could be issued within the year. He encouraged national Parliaments to consider how

to better express their collective voice and interest, without rushing the procedure, but preserving

momentum.

In the following debate, Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK, Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

welcomed the informal

meeting conclusions on the CWP and mentioned the fruitful debate on this topic, which, for the first

time, had been held in the COSAC meeting during the Hungarian Presidency.

Ms Danielle AUROI, French

Assemblée nationale,

noted that the "green card" initiative was

included in a resolution of the

Assemblée nationale

on the CWP. She considered the procedure an

interesting idea and mentioned the decarbonised economy as a possible interesting issue.

Mr Agnieszka POMASKA, Polish

Sejm,

invited all Chairpersons to participate in a future meeting

in Warsaw on the "yellow card" procedure.

Mr Marc ANGEL, Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

said that he would join the informal

working group on the "yellow card" procedure and announced that Luxembourg's Presidency would

continue the debate on the "green and yellow cards".

4. Priorities of the Latvian Presidency of the Council of the European Union and Prospects

for the European Union after the Election of the New European Commission - keynote

speakers: Ms Zanda KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA, Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia, and Mr Frans TIMMERMANS, First Vice-

President of the European Commission for Better Regulation, Interinstitutional Relations, the

Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Ms Zanda KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA, Parliamentary secretary of the Ministry of Foreign affairs of

the Republic of Latvia, estimated that national Parliaments could step up their involvement in the

EU law-making process, thereby ensuring both closer involvement of the citizens they represented

and better cooperation with the European Parliament, as well as with the European Commission.

Ms KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA outlined three main priorities of the Latvian Presidency:

Competitive Europe, Digital Europe and Engaged Europe. Under the topic Competitive Europe, she

noted the wish of the Presidency to strengthen Europe's competitiveness and promote economic

growth. The European Union Fund for Strategic Investments was a top priority for the Presidency.

She pointed out the need to foster the investment in Europe and stated that the conditions for

investments had to be improved by strengthening the internal market, launching the Energy Union

and working on the Digital Single Market (DSM).

Ms KALNIŅA - LUKAŠEVICA underlined that the Presidency had paid special attention to

achieving a fully functioning Single Market and true DSM, particularly focused on better regulation

and cutting red tape. She also mentioned that the Presidency, together with the European

Commission, had launched on 6th February the concept of the Energy Union and stressed the need

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

for an energy policy based on solidarity, trust and security, a better integrated energy infrastructure,

more efficient governance and sustainability.

On Digital Europe, she expressed the need to work on developing an effective DSM, pointing out

that security and trust in the digital environment were a cornerstone for its development. The Digital

Assembly in June in Riga would be one of the steps to that end.

Ms KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA stressed the wish of the Presidency for more engaged and globally

responsible Europe; she pointed out specifically the need for a united approach towards Russia’s

aggression in Ukraine. She reminded the decision of the Extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council on

sanctions, which had to remain in place until Russia delivered on its commitments.

Ms KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA mentioned the revision of the ENP as one of the priorities of the

Latvian Presidency and pointed out that, while the Presidency was focusing on the East, specific

attention had to be devoted also to the issues of importance to the Southern neighbours.

She also noted that the Central Asia Region was also an important part of the Latvian Presidency's

priorities, especially the work on the revision of the EU’s Central Asia Strategy.

Expressing the Council's strong commitment to intensifying the work on

the

Transatlantic Trade

and Investment Partnership (TTIP), she welcomed the European Commission’s move towards

greater transparency in the TTIP negotiations, including making TTIP texts available to the public.

Ms KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA called upon national Parliaments to become actively involved in

this matter.

Ms KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA noted that the terrorist attacks in Paris had brought an additional

priority for the Latvian Presidency, namely, internal security of the EU. She stressed that the EU

had to focus on enhancing cooperation and information sharing, cooperation to reduce the supply of

illegal arms, strategic communication, identification of travel routes of terrorists, namely, moving

towards a European Passenger Name Record (EU PNR) framework. She expressed the conviction

that the negotiations with the European Parliament on the EU PNR system had to start as soon as

possible.

Ms KALNIŅA- LUKAŠEVICA concluded pointing out the need for joint engagement of national

Parliaments, the European Parliament and the European Commission in making better regulation

and principles of subsidiarity and proportionality an integral part of the EU legislative system for

the benefit of all citizens of Europe.

Mr Frans TIMMERMANS, First Vice-President of the European Commission for Better

Regulation, Interinstitutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

noted that the Latvian Presidency's priorities were in line with CWP. Among others, he stressed the

importance of Jean-Claude Juncker's investment plan (Juncker's investment plan) for creating jobs

and growth and the need for increased investments. He pointed out the challenge of the investment

gap, where Juncker's investment plan was a helpful tool.

He stated that, while the security agenda was the responsibility of the Members States and not of the

EU institutions, the European Commission was nevertheless ready to provide assistance. He

referred to the statement of the EU Interior Ministers, asking the European Commission to be more

active and to support Members States. He stressed the need for improvements in the Schengen

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

system. Mr TIMMERMANS expressed his conviction that the Commission was going to negotiate

with the European Parliament on an EU PNR agreement.

The Vice-President also underscored the need for improvement of the Internal Market and creation

of a capital market union. He was convinced that better functioning of internal market would create

growth and jobs. He pointed out the need for labour mobility within the EU and also from the

outside, stressing however that there was no support for labour mobility, if there were no right

policies on asylum and other aspects of migration.

Mr TIMMERMANS mentioned that the DSM was very important, and that a lot would be gained if

we were successful in enacting legislation for data protection, adding that the European

Commission had to work closely with the European Parliament on this.

Mr TIMMERMANS highlighted the importance of foreign policy in the Commissions' agenda,

mentioning the turmoil in Ukraine and threats to security from the other side of the Mediterranean.

On cooperation with national Parliaments, Vice-President TIMMERMANS stressed the need to

intensify contacts with national Parliaments and promised that the European Commission would

engage in discussions with a number of Parliaments as soon as possible on the CWP. He pointed

out that Commissioners had to visit as many Parliaments as possible, especially if there were still

concerns related to subsidiarity and proportionality. He noted that discussions had to be held within

the national Parliaments, should the "yellow card" issue be raised. In this context, he noted that the

confrontational mode in which national Parliaments, on the one hand, and the Commission and the

European Parliament, on the other, were in the past, as well as the idea that the national Parliaments'

increasing position was a blow to European integration were gone. If the gap between institutions

and citizens were to be closed, full engagement of national Parliaments was needed.

He believed that, in order to close the gap between EU institutions and EU citizens, the role of

national Parliaments was crucial. He thus invited national Parliaments to do their utmost in using

the provisions of the treaties to their fullest potential.

In the debate which followed, 23 speakers took the floor.

Mr Ramon Luis VALCARCEL SISO, European Parliament, noted that the three EU institutions

were not able to agree on publishing a joint indicative legislative calendar to be updated constantly

due to the Council's reluctance to adopt such a calendar, which was an essential pillar of

transparency which should govern the EU legislative process, the so-called "better law-making".

Mr VALCARCEL SISO asked the Latvian Presidency and the EU institutions, if they were able to

correct this democratic anomaly of the EU legislative process in order to enhance efficiency to the

benefit of the citizens.

Ms Danuta HÜBNER, European Parliament, praised the current efforts towards implementation and

stated that cooperation among the institutions for improving the functioning of the EU would be

reinforced, if a "change of culture" and the full use of the potential of COSAC were ensured. On

TTIP, she stated that close cooperation between EU institutions was essential for the agreement to

deliver results and underlined the need to have national Parliaments also on board, as they were an

irreplaceable platform for constructive dialogue on the agreement with the citizens. She warned

about the risks of rejection of a potential good deal, in the process of ratification, due to a lack of

understanding. She argued that the agreement on TTIP was a commitment of grand strategic

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

relevance that was necessary in order to avoid the risk that other global powers impose norms and

standards without negotiating them with the EU.

Sir William CASH, UK

House of Commons,

stated that Europe was undergoing a democratic crisis

characterised by a low turnout in the European elections and by the fact that people around Europe

were losing faith in the European institutions. In his view, a change in the architecture of the EU

was needed to overcome this crisis, because the introduction of a "green card" procedure or other

similar measures was not going to restore people's faith in the EU. Furthermore, Sir CASH

expressed his opinion that the United Kingdom (UK) was moving towards an Exit, because it was

in its interest to put democracy first. He stressed that the Greek situation was "the elephant in the

room", and that there was a contradiction in how the EU had dealt with similar situations in the

past.

Mr Igor KOLMAN, Croatian

Hrvatski Sabor,

welcomed the priorities set out by the Latvian

Presidency, in particular the emphasis given to economic growth as well as the security issues

arising from the situation in Ukraine. In this context, he underlined the necessity for a re-assessment

of EU-Russia relations. He welcomed the focus on digital agenda, industry and energy that offered

a shift in approach towards overcoming the economic stagnation. At the same time, in his view,

fiscal discipline remained a precondition for future growth and development. He stressed the

importance of a greater involvement of national Parliaments in the establishment of the Country

Specific Recommendations.

Mr Mehmet TEKELİOĞLU and Ms Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR, Turkish

Büyük Millet Meclisi,

firmly

condemned the attacks on

Charlie Hebdo

and expressed their sympathy with the French people. Mr

TEKELİOĞLU added that terrorism had no religion. They stressed the importance of reviving

Turkey's accession process. In the light of the tragic events in Paris, Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR stressed

that the negotiation Chapter on Foreign and Security policy should be opened soon in order to

enhance cooperation on security policy, but also to guarantee regional stability and peace. She also

referred to Turkey's cooperation in the fight against terrorism. On Syria, she explained that Turkey

gave shelter to about 2 million refugees, and called on the International Community to contribute

more.

Mr Kamal Izidor SHAKER, Slovenian

Državni zbor,

drew attention to the importance of macro-

regional integration in deepening relations between EU and non-EU countries and in identifying

relevant regional projects in the framework of Juncker's investment plan for Europe. He thanked the

European Parliament for its active support for the macro-regional strategies and expressed his hope

for its continuous engagement.

Mr Slaven RADUNOVIĆ, Skupština

Crne Gore,

pointed out that the most important strategic goal

for Montenegro was EU membership. In his view, EU should continue to deepen relations with its

immediate neighbours of the Western Balkans, not only for reasons of peace and stability, but also

to guarantee prosperity for the continent.

Lord Timothy BOSWELL, UK

House of Lords,

asked how the review of the ENP was being

conducted at a practical level and to what extent the partner countries and interested parties in these

policies were being consulted.

Mr Mihai TARARACHE, Romanian

Camera Deputaților,

declared that the preservation of the free

movement of persons was of vital interest to Romania. He continued by stressing that even though

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Romania was investing a lot into securing its borders, including 600 km of the EU external border

with Ukraine, his country was not yet granted membership of the Schengen area.

Mr Jean BIZET, French

Sénat,

stressed that security policy had become a priority since the Paris

attacks and, although it mainly remained a national competence, cooperation at European level was

necessary. In this context, he urged the European institutions to finally adopt the EU PNR file. In

his view, Europe should engage more in fighting cross-border crime through reinforcing Europol

and needed to adopt measures against appeals for violence on the Internet. He also commented on

the situation in Greece, saying that there should be no cancellation of Greece's debt.

Ms Danielle AUROI, French

Assemblée nationale,

welcomed the 3 priorities put on the agenda by

the Presidency. While acknowledging the need to build a digital Europe, she underlined that

European artistic creativity had to be defended. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Ms AUROI

emphasised the principle of solidarity in the fight against terrorism, against any form of

discrimination and intolerance, as well as in the preservation of Fundamental rights.

Mr Dominic HANNIGAN, Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

addressed the current debt issues in

Europe, highlighting that the stability of the continent was under threat if the EU started to give

favourable treatment to one country. He reckoned that this would spread instability to other

countries as well.

Mr Gunther KRICHBAUM, German

Bundestag,

asked the Commission to give its view on the

initiative on the rule of law as well as on the fight against corruption. He then commented on the

situation in Greece emphasising that it was important to stick to what has been agreed. Mr

KRICHBAUM expressed his concerns that if the treaties were not to be respected, it would be

difficult to keep the Union together.

Mr Karlheinz KOPF, Austrian

Nationalrat,

also welcomed the priorities chosen by the Latvian

Presidency. He expressed his concerns about the rising opposition against the free trade agreements

with the United States and Canada among citizens. He considered those agreements necessary in

order to create growth and employment, therefore national Parliaments, Governments, as well as the

European institutions must combine their efforts to better explain the content of those agreements to

citizens.

Ms Agnieszka POMASKA, Polish

Sejm,

pointed out the importance of communication with

society, and wanted to know how the Presidency was perceived by the Latvian population.

Mr Edmund WITTBRODT, Polish

Senat,

underlined the importance of competition and innovation

in the Single Market and showed particular interest in the progress towards a European patent. He

noted that the distance between the European institutions and the national Parliaments needed to be

reduced. He suggested that the Commissioners should visit the national Parliaments more often. He

then asked Vice-President Timmermans to assess the developments in the area of better regulation.

Mr HÖRCSIK, Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

declared his full support to the introduction of the

European Investment plan, provided the following criteria were fulfilled: it should be an additional

measure to existing Structural funds and guarantee equal treatment of Member States, in order to

strike a balance in the choice of projects between new and old Member States, and those using the

Euro and the non-members of the Euro-zone. Mr HÖRCSIK insisted that the creation of

infrastructure such as the North-South and the South-East energy corridors were a prerequisite for a

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

functioning Energy Union and that these investments could be made via the new Investment fund,

under the condition that every country can still decide on its energy mix.

Mr Averof NEOFYTOU, Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

expressed his deep condolences to the

French people. He then welcomed the fact that economic growth had become a priority of the

Presidency. He noted the lack of competitiveness in the EU, and urged for reforms in the area of

energy security, manufacturing and digital agenda.

Mr Philippe MAHOUX, Belgian

Senat,

commented on TTIP and hailed the new transparency of the

negotiation mandate. However, he noted that, if the agreement resulted in dismantling social rights,

health care or environmental protection, there would not be a broad acceptance among citizens. He

stressed that transparency was essential in agreements concerning services of public interest. Mr

MAHOUX also wanted to know how the accession of the EU to the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) (ECHR)

was progressing after the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU.

Mr José LÓPEZ GARRIDO, Spanish

Cortes Generales,

agreed with the new political orientation of

the European Commission towards growth and job creation. He then informed about the statement

adopted by the Chairpersons of the Parliaments of the South, stating that those countries who were

helped by the Union needed to comply with the commitments assumed in the bilateral aid programs.

Mr LÓPEZ GARRIDO underlined that the structural reforms carried out in Spain during the past

year resulted in considerable growth and job creation.

Mr Marc ANGEL, Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

referred to the role of Europe in the world

and congratulated the Presidency for promoting the European Year of Development. He emphasised

that the fight against poverty should be an integral part of European Foreign policy and Security

policy. In the context of the negotiations of the post-2015 Millennium goals, as well as in the

negotiations leading to a new protocol on climate change, he stressed that Europe must speak with

one voice.

Mr Luciano BUSUTTIL, Maltese

Kamra-tad-Deputati,

focussed his intervention on the

immigration problem. He expressed his concerns about the instability in Libya that could threaten

the security in Europe if extremists could not be effectively prevented from crossing the

Mediterranean. He reminded that this was not only a Maltese or Italian problem, but a European

problem.

Mr TIMMERMANS first responded to the interventions in relation to TTIP and reminded that the

Commission had decided to act with a great level of transparency and carry on with this approach.

He argued for a more rational approach when dealing with TTIP.

As for the role of the European Commission, the Vice-President stressed that, during the economic

crisis, the Commission had been forced into a role which had not been foreseen by the treaties. In

this sense, one of the tasks of the new Commission would be to put itself fully back in a position to

fulfil its role as intended by the treaties. Mr TIMMERMANS underlined that a mere return of

power to national institutions was not the answer to the democratic challenges, because that would

mean to underestimate the crisis in which not only the EU institutions, but also national institutions

find themselves in. In his view, all institutions, be it at national or European level, were challenged

as a consequence of the economic crisis, thus every institution had to play its role under the treaties.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

In his reply, the Vice-President also emphasised that countries must stick to their engagements and

reminded the audience of the principle prevailing in International Law

"Pacta sunt servanda".

recognised huge problems with youth unemployment and the terrible sufferings some countries and

their population had to go through recently; however, he reminded of the tremendous level of

solidarity shown by other Member States.

On the rule of law initiative, Mr TIMMERMANS informed that the Commission would look at it

on a case-by-case basis and would work on it closely with the Council. He acknowledged a

regression in this regard and stressed that the rule of law must remain the centre of attention. He

emphasised that, if some minorities did not feel safe in Europe, Europe had no future. He added that

the Commission remained committed to the EU joining the ECHR.

In conclusion, the Vice-President touched upon the ENP, informing that the European External

Action Service (EEAS) and the Commission worked closely together, so as the review would be

ready by 4 March and the annual package would be presented later in March.

In her replies, Ms KALNINA-LUKAŠEVICA stressed the key role of national Parliaments and the

political dialogue. She added that the Council was committed to enhancing interinstitutional

cooperation, notably by making progress in the interinstitutional Programming and by ensuring a

more efficient legislative process. Commenting on one question, she stressed that the support for the

EU in the Latvian population was at the highest level in history.

On the situation in Greece, Ms KALNINA-LUKAŠEVICA made it clear that the Presidency

appreciated the reforms already adopted and expected the obligations to be fulfilled. She also

underlined that it was in the common interest of the EU that the UK did not leave the EU, declaring

that there would be no winners in case of an exit.

As to Juncker's investment plan, the parliamentary secretary acknowledged that this constituted a

key element to economic growth. However, the time frame fixed by the December Council was

tight. She underlined that the Council was prepared to do its utmost to put the European fund for

strategic Investment in place as early as June.

Ms KALNINA-LUKAŠEVICA stressed that the Energy Union was one of the priorities of the

Latvian Presidency. She expressed her hope that the so-called Riga process to be launched in

February 2015 by the European Commission, would contribute to adoption of this concept. She

then recalled the five main elements of the Energy Union: solidarity, functioning and interconnected

energy market, energy diplomacy, energy independence and governance.

Commenting on the free movement of persons, she declared that this was one of the core values of

the EU and a fundamental component of the Single market. Prevention of fraud and abuse in this

domain could be achieved while guaranteeing equal and non-discriminatory conditions.

Ms KALNINA-LUKAŠEVICA acknowledged that, although immigration issues had been on the

agenda for a long time, Europe was confronted with a new phenomenon, namely, "ghost ships". In

this context, she called for more coordinated and determined EU actions and recalled the

comprehensive approach adopted by the Council in October. Its key elements were: strengthening

the border controls, fight against human trafficking and cooperation with third countries.

As to discussions on trade liberalisation, Ms KALNINA-LUKAŠEVICA assured that the

Presidency was committed to concluding agreements with different partners and foremost with the

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

United States. She added that ambitious TTIP agreement was not only important from an

economical, but also from a geopolitical point of view. The Presidency would actively participate in

measures guaranteeing transparency and raising public awareness. Although the public consultation

on Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) had been closed, the Presidency considered that

further discussions were necessary. Involvement of national Parliaments, as well as civil society,

was crucial in the discussions leading to an agreement on ISDS. She welcomed the fact that topic

was to be covered in the Bi-annual Report of COSAC.

The parliamentary secretary also commented on enlargement policy. She stressed the importance of

the principle of conditionality in the accession negotiations and explained that a merit-based

approach would be the key element. On Schengen enlargement, she referred to the ministerial

discussion in March were she hoped a decision could be taken.

On terrorism she mentioned that a number of measures already in place must be implemented more

actively, both internally and externally in cooperation with the partner countries. She noted that the

Presidency was committed to concluding an agreement on the EU PNR guaranteeing a balance

between security, freedom and data protection. She added that the upcoming Commission's review

of internal security strategy would be considered as a priority.

5. Eastern Partnership and Challenges Ahead - keynote speakers: Mr Urban AHLIN,

Speaker of the Swedish

Riksdag,

Mr Edgars RINKĒVIČS, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the

Republic of Latvia, and Mr Ostap SEMERAK, First Deputy Chairman of the Committee on

European Integration of the Ukrainian

Verkhova Rada

In her introductory remarks, the Chair stated that in the light of one of the main priorities of the

Latvian Presidency, namely, a Europe engaged globally – the role of the EU had to be recast in

terms of its actions towards the rest of the world, including the Eastern Partnership countries.

In his speech Mr Urban AHLIN, Speaker of the Swedish

Riksdag,

seconded that statement, saying

that the Eastern Partnership could not and should not be of concern only to some EU Member

States, but that it should lay in the strategic interest of the whole EU.

Mr AHLIN reminded that Sweden, together with Poland, was an initiator of the Eastern Partnership

policy aiming at ensuring stability and economic prosperity at the Eastern borders of the EU. He

stressed that it was never intended to create any dividing lines, or to play geopolitical games with

Russia, but that it was built upon an understanding that prosperous and secure countries also had

prosperous and secure neighbours.

He pointed out two key components of partnership; first, it created links and facilitated cooperation

between people. This included more student exchanges, widened participation in EU education and

culture programmes, such as ERASMUS, streamlined visa procedures to facilitate such exchanges,

and led to more freedom of speech. Second, it helped fight against corruption, as it devoted

considerable resources to assist partner countries in making their public administrations more

efficient and transparent, and in reforming their legal systems.

Mr AHLIN noted that great progress had been achieved in relations within the Eastern Partnership,

but only tangible results fully visible to the citizens would ensure its success.

He estimated that the key to that end laid in individual approaches to each of those six partner

countries, since they all faced different challenges and had made different choices along the way. It

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

was important for the EU to recognise the right of every country to choose its way and to maintain

good cooperation modes with all of them.

The upcoming Riga summit in May, he said, would have to address several challenges: assessment

of progress made to date, and renewal of the commitment to the partnership from both sides.

He urged parliamentarians to ratify those Association Agreements already on the table before the

Riga summit, namely, those with Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, and stressed the importance of

upholding a strong, committed partnership, as well as highlighting those countries' European

prospects.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Edgars RINKĒVIČS, pointed out that the overall priority was

a balanced ENP, with critical challenges both in the South and in East being addressed (such as

immigration, terrorism etc.).

He informed that the forthcoming Eastern Partnership summit in Riga would take into account the

first results of the review of the ENP, and give a very clear signal to our partners about the EU's

deep engagement in the EU Eastern partnership, so as to enhance prosperity, security and stability

at its Eastern borders.

The minister mentioned differentiation as a key word, analysing whatever changes and

improvements were needed. He noted that the Eastern partner countries had opted for different

paths: Belarus and Armenia were members of the Eurasian Union, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine

had signed Association Agreements with the EU, aiming at deeper cooperation, whilst Azerbaijan

maintained specific bilateral relations.

Mr RINKĒVIČS reiterated that for Georgia and Moldova, already implementing those agreements,

the Riga summit would set out the next steps for a robust assistance programme aiming at further

implementation.

As for Ukraine, the minister stressed the need to deliver on the assistance programmes, because a

lot of changes could occur in the 4 months' time run-up to the Riga summit. In this context, the

Presidency was working together with other EU institutions and international institutions. This

assistance programme must be linked to real reform results.

The vision for Armenia could be a new agreement covering certain aspects that were worked out on

the basis of previous Association Agreements.

As for Belarus, the minister reminded that the Eastern Partnership was also based on common

values, thus particular efforts were made to address issues related to freedom of speech, and the

like, whereas, in the case of Azerbaijan, those very issues were matters of concern in the way of

further development of the partnership.

Mr RINKĒVIČS mentioned other key aspects of the deliverables of the Riga Summit - the

programme of mobility and loosening of visa requirements, as well as the cooperation in the field of

energy. He also insisted that the freedom of media was crucial in any reform process, thus a proper

attention had to be devoted to this aspect.

Last but not least, the Minister stressed the key role of parliamentary cooperation. In his opinion,

both the European Parliament and the national Parliaments had developed solid levels of

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

partnership and contacts, which helped Eastern partners further develop their democratic systems

and political rights.

Mr Ostap SEMERAK, First Deputy Chairman of the Committee on European Integration of

the

Verkhovna Rada

of Ukraine, expressed his gratitude for the solidarity and support shown to

Ukraine, in particular the Resolution from the European Parliament of 15 January and the EU

Council decision of 29 January, as well as the statement adopted by the Chairpersons of COSAC

earlier that morning.

He quoted the Latvian example as one to be encouraged by, in terms of implementing necessary

reforms and making the prospects of EU integration real.

Mr SEMERAK expressed the view that the underlying cause for the Russian aggression against

Ukraine lied in its European choice, and that the best answer to that aggression was a successful

Ukraine. This goal should be reached by implementing reforms. The first package of reforms had

been approved by the Parliament, together with an implementation plan. Among the priorities of

this reform package, he mentioned tax and budget decentralisation, lowering the level of state

expenditure, fighting the shadow economy and corruption. He suggested reducing spending on

seminars held on the reforms within the framework of the Easter partnership, but investing more

into their actual implementation, including in security.

Besides reforms, Ukraine must find ways of ending the war, which was not a civil war, nor a

military conflict, but an attack on Western European values. Mr SEMERAK argued that the

delivery of defensive weapons would help Ukraine, rather than prolong the conflict. He also

considered a Geneva format more appropriate in working out a solution, as the Minsk Protocol was

important in peaceful regulation, but the EU had to play a larger role in stabilising the conflict. He

also stressed the importance of the new concept of information security of the EU that the

Commission was currently working on, and informed that Ukraine was preparing its contribution to

that document.

Mr SEMERAK called upon all countries to provide humanitarian support and urged all national

Parliaments to speed up work towards ratifying the association agreement between the EU and

Ukraine, so as to complete this process before the Riga Summit.

He concluded by pointing out the importance of loosening visa rules for ordinary citizens of

Ukraine, and hoped for positive developments in this area at the Riga Summit.

In the following debate, 13 speakers took the floor.

Ms HÜBNER, European Parliament, hoped that the Riga Summit would give a real push to the

renewed ENP, an 'after-Ukraine' policy acknowledging the lessons learned during recent years,

notably Russia's manifest hostility towards the EU. She mentioned the challenges of the lack of

compatibility between the EU deep comprehensive free trade agreements with post-Soviet countries

and the latter's free trade agreements with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union, but also the

fact that the Association Agreements did not cover security. She also mentioned EU's efforts to

open the borders with Ukraine, so that the argument of unsafe borders could not be used and called

for more generous financial support from the EU would be needed so that people in Ukraine would

not fall for Russian propaganda.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR,

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi,

expressed Turkey's interest in the TTIP

negotiations and its wish to be automatically included in EU free trade agreements with third

parties. She added that Turkey supported a peaceful solution to the conflict in Ukraine based on

territorial integrity and international law, stressing that Turkey did not recognise the illegal

annexation of Crimea and considered a high priority the protection of the rights of the Tatars from

Crimea, victims of unacceptable violations of fundamental rights and freedoms. Mr Cristian-Dănuţ

MIHAI, Romanian

Senat,

called for a comprehensive review of the Eastern Partnership, as the EU

should adjust its offer in line with the principles of differentiation and 'more for more' in order to

reward the best -performing partner countries, such as Moldova whose European agenda would

continue to be backed by Romania. Mr Øeyvind HALLERAKER, Norwegian

Storting,

argued that

the unacceptable Russian aggression in Ukraine should not become yet another frozen conflict in

the Eastern Neighbourhood; he referred to Norway's efforts to provide budgetary support and

capacity building to some of the EU ENP partners and to the recent agreement with Ukraine on a

comprehensive package supporting reforms in various fields, signed in November 2014.

Mr BIZET, French

Sénat,

insisted that there was no military solution to the Ukrainian conflict and

that a solution needed to be negotiated in the framework of the Minsk Agreements ensuring the

respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty; in his view, the EU should use individual

sanctions and measures against those who supported the military actions of separatists; he also

stated that a political solution called for a national dialogue, reforms and the election of

representatives in the Eastern region that would be recognised by all. He added that the Eastern

Partnership should abide by the 2009 Prague Framework and observe the principle of

differentiation, a pragmatic approach that should also be applied to the Southern partners. Ms

AUROI, French

Assemblée nationale,

mentioned the diverse situation of the Eastern Partnership

countries: while Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan were closer to Russia and had authoritarian

regimes, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia decided to conclude Association Agreements with the EU.

She insisted on the fact that association did not automatically lead to EU membership, as those were

two distinct processes, and on the need to find a peaceful solution that respected Ukraine's

independence and democratic choices. She called on the Latvian Presidency to remain focused on

Mediterranean countries and recalled Turkey's role as necessary interface in fighting terrorism and

intolerance.

Mr HANNIGAN, Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

recalled the recent ratification by Ireland of the

Association Agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, an important step given the current

crisis in Ukraine, and supported the declaration on Ukraine adopted by the Chairpersons of

COSAC, expressing the hope that important measures would also be taken during the Riga Summit.

Mr KRICHBAUM, German

Bundestag,

referred to the importance of the Southern dimension of the

ENP. He added that in Germany the ratification procedure of the Association Agreements with

Eastern partners would be concluded before the Riga Summit, which was an important message.

Mentioning the US decision to support Ukraine with defence weapons, while Europe discussed

whether sanctions would be maintained, he stated that it was vital to continue to speak with one

voice, as Russia only understood the language of strength. He acknowledged the need for solidarity

with Ukraine, which was the victim of actions aimed at destabilising it economically and militarily,

but called for reforms to be implemented so that financial support from the International Monetary

Fund (IMF) and the EU could be further granted.

Mr WITTBRODT, Polish

Sejm,

also underlined the need for solidarity and to speak with one voice;

he informed the audience that by the end of the week Poland would have ratified the Association

Agreements and called for further support for programmes such as Erasmus+; he also referred to

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Russia's 'soft war', influencing the public opinion in Ukraine and in the Baltic countries by media

and propaganda. Mr BENESIK, Czech

Poslanecká Sněmovna,

called for support to make education

programmes such as Erasmus available to the Ukrainian people, as they enabled students and

teachers to experience first-hand how developed democracies functioned. Mr Vaclav HAMPL,

Czech

Senát,

supported the statement of the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC on Ukraine and

referred to the burden on Ukrainian's economy, estimated at 10 million dollars per day, and to the

increased risk of complete economic collapse which would have disastrous consequences for

Europe; he asked how Ukraine intended to ensure the success of the necessary reforms.

In his replies, Mr AHLIN mentioned the importance of sanctions and dialogue, but also of support

to Ukraine, as successful development of Russia's neighbours could have a direct impact on Russia's

own evolution. In his view, it was only up to Russia's actions to trigger the easing of sanctions.

While stressing the need for dialogue because no military solution was conceivable at EU level, he

insisted on the importance of both support from the EU and of the Ukrainian national efforts to

conduct comprehensive reforms and implement the signed agreements. Although he acknowledged

the consequences of the war situation, he deplored the insufficient results achieved so far and

underlined the need for progress which conditioned long-term support from the EU. He argued that

Russia suffered from "post-imperialistic stress syndrome" and referred to the media propaganda

campaigns exalting its greatness; he expressed the belief that it would take time until Russia

decided to focus on diversifying its economy and building a prosperous democratic country and

called on the EU to stay united and continue to speak with one voice.

In his replies, Mr RINKĒVIČS expressed his willingness to actively participate in the process of the

Commission's review of the ENP. He stressed the need for a common understanding of the overall

goal of the two- tier ENP. In his view, among the lessons learned was that there had been no clear

understanding on the "exit" strategy of the Eastern Partnership, second, that 6 countries with

different situations and levels of ambition had been undifferentiated. He considered the situation as

even more complicated in the South where enormous financial support was given to various sets of

policies, ranging from the Mediterranean dimension to assistance programs and cooperation with

third countries for combatting terrorism, with no conditionality, differentiation, and sufficient

individual approach. He recalled that Russia reacted to the Eastern Partnership only in 2013, when

it started to perceive ENP as a potential interference with the creation of a Eurasian Economic

Union. He mentioned the recent discussions on a potential EU - Eurasian Economic Union

dialogue, which would be feasible only provided that the situation in Ukraine changed and that the

Eurasian Economic Union functioned, which was currently not the case; this dialogue should not be

ruled out, especially if it helped to engage with Eastern partners, but its objectives and level of

ambition should be clear. He then clarified that discussions with Ukraine concerned visa

liberalisation and not borders' opening and, while reiterating EU's practical and political support and

assistance, he stressed that Ukraine would not benefit from a fast track procedure and that it needed

to meet the relevant criteria.

He commended EU's approach in engaging in a political dialogue with Russia on the situation in

Ukraine, under the Geneva or Normandy format, and stressed that, although the Geneva Declaration

of 17 April and the Minsk Agreements formed a good basis for tackling the situation in Ukraine,

there was no implementation because Russia continued to back the actions of separatists and to be

part of the problem and not of the solution. He insisted on the need for greater involvement of EU

diplomacy and referred to the excellent contacts with the High Representative of the Union for

Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in order to ensure the necessary negotiations between EU and

Russia in various formats. He underlined that economic sanctions were, along with the political

dialogue and the diplomatic instruments, the few available tools that the EU could use. In his view,

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

the overall policy of resorting to sanctions in case the situation deteriorated and softening them if

there were improvements, could not change Russia's behaviour, but had already functioned as a

deterrent preventing it from intensifying its action. He emphasised that it was clear that the EU did

not provide military assistance; he mentioned that Member States should assist Ukraine in every

possible way, and that those with military capabilities willing to cooperate with Ukraine could do so

only based on a national decision and not on one adopted at EU level.

The Minister further expressed hope for progress on the negotiations on TTIP during the Latvian

Presidency and, while stating negotiations would be continued by the next two EU Presidencies, he

expressed willingness to try to address the concerns regarding the inclusion of Turkey in the overall

TTIP framework.

On the protection of the Crimean Tatars, he referred to the clear position expressed during the

Foreign Affairs Council of 29 January 2015 and to the efforts of raising this issue in the framework

of United Nations (UN) and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)

meetings, urging all Member States to do the same during bilateral meetings with Russia and in

various international organisations.

He stressed that Association Agreements were indeed not to be equated with admission agreements,

but referred to the vision of the Founding Fathers of the EU and to the explicit provisions of the EU

treaties under which European countries which meet the criteria could become EU members

provided there was unity within the EU on that issue. He also mentioned the information warfare

conducted by Russia throughout Europe and welcomed recent EU decisions to address strategic

communication of the EU and measures to counter propaganda, insisting on the need of a debate on

setting the limit between freedom of speech and its deliberate misuse to fight the EU.

Mr SEMERAK mentioned that the EU and US sanctions were the right approach and helped

limiting Russia's aggression, but believed that there should be no message on a possible easing of

sanctions in the absence of changes on Russia's part. On the violation of human rights of Crimean

Tatars and other minorities, the Ukrainian Parliament prepared a report presented also to the

European Parliament. According to him, the military solution was not the only way to solve the

Ukrainian conflict, but he explained that the conflict needed to be localised, a solution needed to be

found to re-integrate those regions into Ukraine, an agreement on the cease-fire regime was

necessary and efforts had to be deployed so that Russia fulfilled the Minsk Agreements which was

currently not the case.

He expressed the hope Commissioner Hahn and the European Parliament would be successful in

working towards a common policy on media freedom and countering propaganda; he also informed

participants on the recent reforms in higher education and thanked Latvia for its support for

programmes of student exchanges. He expressed confidence in the success of reforms, which were

the only way out of conflict and could maintain Ukraine's unity. While thanking the EU for its

support, he explained that up to 25 per cent of the Ukrainian economy was located in the conflict

region which made modernising and rebuilding economy and infrastructure more difficult.