EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

Europaudvalget 2015-16
EUU Alm.del Bilag 800
Offentligt

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CHAIRPERSONS OF COSAC

Bratislava, Slovakia, 11 July 2016

AGENDA:

1. Opening of the meeting

Welcome address by Mr Béla BUGÁR, Deputy-Speaker of the Slovak

Národná

rada

Introductory remarks by

Mr �½uboš

BLAHA, Chair of the European Affairs

Committee of the Slovak

Národná rada

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

3. Procedural issues and miscellaneous matters

Briefing on the results of the Presidential Troika of COSAC

Draft agenda of the LVI COSAC

Outline of the 26th Bi-annual Report of COSAC

Letters received by the Presidency

4. Priorities of the Slovak EU Council Presidency

Keynote speaker: Mr Miroslav LAJČÁK, Minister of Foreign and European

Affairs of the Slovak Republic

Remarks on the outcome of the UK referendum:

Sir William CASH, Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee of the UK

House

of Commons

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

House of

Lords

5. Social Dimension of the EU & Cohesion Policy - Triple A on social issues

Keynote speakers: Mr Mars DI BARTOLOMEO, President of the Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Ms Marianne THYSSEN,

European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Labour

Mobility, and Mr Jan KELLER, Professor in Sociology and Member of the

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European Parliament

PROCEEDINGS

IN THE CHAIR: Mr �½uboš BLAHA, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the

Slovak

Národná rada

1. Opening of the meeting

- Welcome address by Mr Béla BUGÁR, Deputy Speaker of the Slovak

Národná rada

Introductory remarks by Mr �½uboš BLAHA, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the

Slovak

Národná rada

Mr Béla BUGÁR, Deputy Speaker of the Slovak

Národná rada,

began his welcome address by

acknowledging that during the coming months, despite the many historical challenges faced by the

Union, Slovakia would act responsibly and as an honest broker. It would focus on day to day

challenges and would bring new energy to Europe. Mr BUGÁR remarked that the Union was at a

crossroads, but that there was opportunity for serious discussions, despite the deepening distaste for

politics and increasing populism.

Mr BUGÁR pointed out that the EU needed an open discussion among its leaders, as well as self-

reflection, in order to have an EU that was better and more comprehensible for its citizens. The

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

outcome should reflect the discussion in all of the Member States and citizens should feel that they

were heard.

He underlined that it was necessary to show the uniqueness of the EU project, with many areas where

there was a need to move forward. He felt that the Presidency programme, with its four priority areas,

showed the ambition to increase the Union's resilience in the face of external and internal challenges,

and to restore citizens' confidence in the European project.

Mr BUGÁR stressed the importance of avoiding a dichotomy of new and old countries, east and west.

To conclude, Mr BUGÁR referred to the invitation of Mr Andrej DANKO, Speaker of the National

Council of the Slovak Republic, addressed to all Speakers of EU Parliaments to an informal meeting

under

the initiative “Let´s get to know each other better” in Bratislava on 7 October 2016.

Mr �½uboš BLAHA, Chair of the

European Affairs Committee of the Slovak

Národná rada,

welcomed

all participants and explained some technical and procedural matters.

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

Mr BLAHA briefly presented the draft agenda of the meeting. The agenda of the COSAC

Chairpersons' meeting was approved without amendment.

3. Procedural issues and miscellaneous matters

- Briefing on the results of the Presidential Troika of COSAC

- Draft agenda of the LVI COSAC

- Outline of the 26th Bi-annual Report of COSAC

- Letters received by the Presidency

Mr BLAHA briefed the participants on the results of the Presidential Troika meeting organised the

previous day and presented the draft programme of the LVI COSAC meeting in November. He

explained the first part of the plenary programme would focus on the state of play of the Slovak

Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The second session would focus on the

strengthening of the role of national Parliaments in the EU in the context of the referendum on UK

membership of the EU. Mr BLAHA mentioned that the challenges, opportunities and risks of the

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would be discussed during the third session.

The final two sessions would address the Energy Union and securing the external borders of the EU

in the context of irregular migration, respectively.

Then, Mr BLAHA explained the three chapters of the outline for the 26th Bi-annual Report of

COSAC: 1) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union

and the United States: Parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiation process; 2) 2016: Energy Union's

"year of delivery"; and 3) Improving the role of national Parliaments in the EU and communicating

the EU affairs at national level. The questionnaire would be distributed at the end of July, while

replies were expected by 9 of September 2016 at the latest.

To conclude, the Chair reported on the Troika's decisions as regards the letters received by the

Presidency.

4. Priorities of the Slovak EU Council Presidency

Keynote speaker: Mr Miroslav LAJČÁK, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak

Republic

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

In his introduction, Mr Miroslav LAJČÁK, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak

Republic, mentioned the increased role of the national Parliaments and the European Parliament since

the Lisbon Treaty, adding that interparliamentary cooperation was a key ingredient for an accountable

EU. He stressed that it was an honour for Slovakia to lead the EU, as this was their home, the euro

their currency and Schengen their area. Recalling the optimism he had witnessed when Slovakia had

joined the EU, Mr LAJČÁK admitted that now there was a different EU facing many challenges, but

stressed the need to keep calm and act in unity when dealing with the current issues, which, he added,

showed that the EU and its benefits could not be taken for granted.

Mr LAJČÁK continued on the consequences of the UK referendum, which would be on the agenda

for the coming months. The EU needed to act and indulge in self-reflection, which was why the

Presidency was organising an informal summit on 16 September 2016 in Bratislava on the future

direction of the Union. An important element for the discussion was to think about EU citizens and

how to better explain the EU. The intention of the Slovak Presidency was to be pragmatic and uniting,

and serve as the people´s voice.

The four ambitions in the Presidency programme were all highlighted by Mr LAJČÁK. The first

ambition was to make a stronger European economy with a focus on investment, further economic

growth and job creation through,

inter alia,

the deepening of the Monetary and Banking Union and

the building of the Capital Markets Union. Another topic was the mid-term review of the Multiannual

Financial Framework and the budget for 2017.

The second ambition was to modernise and broaden the Single Market in areas such as energy and

the digital economy.

A third ambition, Mr LAJČÁK continued, was to work towards sustainable

migration and asylum

policy. To solve current problems EU wide efforts were needed, and in his opinion, the proper

functioning of Schengen was also needed, while keeping in mind that matters of asylum were not

only about relocation. The European Commission would soon be putting more proposals on the table,

and these would all need to be worked upon.

The final ambition highlighted was the attention to the external environment, namely trade deals and

enlargement policy. On the trade deals, Mr LAJČÁK expressed

the view that the EU needed to be a

strong global player and he explained his support for agreements as CETA and TTIP. He added that

the European Neighbourhood Policy was an important element in order to achieve transformation in

the neighbouring

countries. Mr LAJČÁK stressed that the path to EU membership was through deep

and comprehensive reforms.

Remarks on the outcome of the UK referendum:

Sir William CASH, Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee of the UK

House of Commons

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

House of Lords

The Presidency invited Sir William CASH, Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, UK

House

of Commons,

to introduce the debate ensuing the

Minister’s

speech and Lord Timothy BOSWELL,

Chair of the EU Select Committee, UK

House of Lords,

to close the debate, giving their remarks on

the outcome of the UK referendum. Sir William CASH underlined how the decision had been

building for a long time and stressed that, in his opinion, similar tendencies were spreading among at

least the population of many countries. He ruled out any possibility for a second referendum and

stated that there were many trade deals in the making between the UK and third countries. He called

for opening informal negotiations with the EU before the official triggering of the Article 50 TEU,

highlighting that the Article in question was part of the Lisbon Treaty rejected in the referendum and

emphasising the mutual interest in good bilateral relations.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

The nineteen speakers who took the floor in the debate all emphasised the ambitious set of priorities

presented by the Slovak Presidency, appreciating namely the focus on the Energy Union and on the

Digital Single Market, while recognising the unprecedented situation in which the EU found itself

following the result of the UK referendum. In this respect, all speakers expressed the need to respect

the decision of the citizens of the UK despite the regret expressed by many speakers over that

decision. The majority, among them Mr Linas BALSYS, Lithuanian

Seimas,

Ms Regina BASTOS,

Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

Mr Konrad GŁĘBOCKI,

Polish

Sejm,

Mr Kalle PALLING,

Estonian

Riigikogu,

Mr Luciano BUSUTTIL, Maltese

Kamra tad-Deputati,

and Mr Kamal Izidor

SHAKER, Slovenian

Državni zbor,

highlighted the need to secure friendly and constructive ties

between the EU and the UK after its exit. As far as the question of exit negotiations was concerned,

a number of interventions (e.g. Mr Vannino CHITI, Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

and Mr Jean

BIZET, French

Sénat)

called for reducing uncertainty on both sides; therefore, the responsibility of

triggering the mechanisms foreseen by the Article 50 TEU should be taken without unnecessary

delay. Some of the speakers saw the result of the UK referendum as a sign of growing distance

between the citizens and the EU, which had not delivered on their needs and concerns; therefore, a

realistic, concrete approach would be the best answer to such worries. These views were supported

by Mr Malik AZMANI, Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

who also highlighted the need for ensuring a better

future for the EU enterprises and the need for strengthening the

EU’s

economy. Mr BUSUTTIL

commented that the result of the referendum had come to the Parliament of Malta as an unexpected

shock and that it was the reaction of the UK citizens who did not feel they were a priority for the EU.

He added that Europe must be flexible enough to accommodate the individual realities faced by

Member States. Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK, Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

welcomed the fact that in the

complicated framework where the EU found itself and the enormous challenge of the outcome of the

referendum in the UK, the Presidency decided to propose a positive agenda offering proposals for

sustainable solutions. He particularly welcomed the

Presidency’s

support for credible enlargement

policy, as a major force of transformation and stabilisation. Mr Konrad

GŁĘBOCKI,

Polish

Sejm,

expressed the opinion that the outcome of the referendum was the consequence of a serious crisis of

the EU. According to him, a deep analysis of the EU with the prospect of changing treaties where the

role of national Parliaments should be reinforced was required rather than focusing on closer

integration.

Mr BALSYS stressed the need to come out of such a critical situation as a stronger EU. Ms Anna

BIRCHALL, Romanian

Camera

Deputaţilor,

welcomed the set of priorities of the Presidency and

pledged for support to cohesion and agriculture policies, and full respect of the four freedoms of

movement. According to her, it was time for reinforcing solidarity among the Member States and she

asked the Presidency to redefine the future of the EU project. Mr Stéphane CRUSNIÈRE, Belgian

Chambre des Représentants,

said that massive public investments should be excluded from the state

deficit figures and that the digital market, social EU and the and anti-dumping, energy and

environment and fiscal equity were the five utmost priorities requiring the EU action after the UK

referendum. Mr CHITI appreciated the commitment and passion expressed by the Slovak Presidency

in its priorities, and called for a re-launch of the EU focusing on uniting its people around the funding

principles of the European project. Mr Karlheinz KOPF, Austrian

Nationalrat,

insisted on the

responsibility of politicians to engage with and inform the citizens on the topics that may worry them

and on the importance of the EU and its benefits as the best way to defeat the increasing populism of

which the UK referendum was one example. Mr BIZET stressed the urgency to give a new impulse

to reforms in order to galvanise the EU project. According to him, a reflexion group where

Parliaments would be invited to share opinions on the future of the EU could be launched. For Ms

BASTOS the respect was necessary both for the decision of the British citizens and for the citizens

of the EU; the completion of the Banking Union was as a first step in strengthening the EU. Ms Marija

Maja

ĆATOVIĆ,

Montenegro

Skupština,

and Ms Marinika

TEPIĆ,

Serbian

Narodna

Skupština,

called for the continuous support to the enlargement, especially helping candidate countries with

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

their efforts to reform. Mr SHAKER stressed the urgent need for a stronger and better EU with simple

and clear messages to its citizens. For him, all the most urgent challenges were defined in the

Presidency priorities. Mr Christian TYBRING-GJEDDE, Norwegian

Stortinget,

wished that the

results of the UK referendum did not mean that the EU would stop its efforts to boost economic

growth, to address the EU

citizens’

concerns about sovereignty, to confront an ever more assertive

Russia, to defend EU external borders and strengthen Schengen. He stressed that the UK exit from

the EU meant that there should be new negotiations also between the UK and the European Economic

Area. Mr Anastasios KOURAKIS, Hellenic

Vouli ton Ellinon,

stressed the

EU’s

incapacity to keep

pace with the increasing social disparity and the growing poverty due to the prevailing liberal

economic model and asked for adequate support mechanisms for those in urgent need. According to

Ms Danielle AUROI, French

Assemblée Nationale,

working on consolidation of the trust between the

citizens and the EU based on its core values of democracy and social solidarity was required with

focus on priorities in relation to the social dimension.

A topic that was recurrently addressed in the debate by many speakers was migration, indicated as

the most acute crisis facing the EU. Among others, Ms BIRCHALL invited the EU to address the

root causes of the crisis in a way that could preserve the Schengen

acquis

and the four freedoms of

movement. Mr CHITI stressed the need to reinforce the EU support to development policies and the

need for genuine solidarity among Member States. Mr AZMANI encouraged the Presidency to pursue

the proposals that enjoyed broad support, as well as to move forward on all the challenges that the

EU faced. Mr TYBRING-GJEDDE invoked more solidarity in sharing the burden of migration, but

invited also the EU to aim at a more global solution where Europe would work for the solutions of

the root causes of migration, lack of freedom, wars, and fundamentalism. Similarly, Mr BUSUTTIL

reflected on the lack of solidarity with countries facing the migratory pressure alone. He called for a

security-focused approach regarding the situation of migrants coming from Libya and demanded an

effective solidarity EU system. Mr José Ignacio SÁNCHEZ AMOR underlined how the issue of the

refugees and migrants would better be seen as related to the social dimension rather than solely as a

security issue and urged the EU to act speedily. He also invited the EU to renegotiate the Dublin

Regulation. Mr HÖRCSIK highlighted that it was urgent to bring Schengen to its full normal

functioning and to achieve a fully working system of defence of the EU external boarders and coasts.

For Mr Edgar MAYER, Austrian

Bundesrat,

the priorities laid in sustainable migration and asylum

policy preserving the Schengen area and establishing an effective external border control. He insisted

on the need for an EU asylum policy based on solidarity where all EU members played their part. Ms

AUROI referred to climate change among the causes of the

refugees’

crisis. The participation of

Serbia as a non-EU member in finding the solutions for the migration crises was highlighted by Ms

TEPIĆ.

At the end of the debate, Lord Timothy BOSWELL, Chair of the EU Select Committee of the UK

House of Lords,

thanked the Presidency and welcomed all the constructive comments that had been

expressed. Explaining that he would be expressing his personal views since his Committee had

decided not to take sides on the referendum, he said he had supported the

UK’s

membership of the

EU and shared his disappointment about the result of the referendum, expressing the view that his

country was paying the price for a long term failure of leadership across the entire political spectrum.

He offered his personal apologies for the damages that such a failure provoked to the EU. According

to him, there was no prospect in speculations about reversing the decision, though the shock and grief

of those who voted to remain in the EU were present, he added. He finally asked all colleagues to

show patience and hoped for a genuine interest in building a better EU.

Minister

LAJČÁK

expressed his positive surprise for the great level of unity in identifying the

challenges ahead regarding what needed to be done and for the overall positive assessment of the

priorities of the Presidency. Facing very difficult times, the Presidency chose to focus on a positive

agenda and on practical issues that brought the EU together. The Minister acknowledged that the EU

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

had two utmost priorities: to negotiate a new relationship with the UK, and to create a new, better,

more attractive EU of 27. The Minister understood that it was necessary to grant time to the UK, but

at the same time he was certain that the UK understood that the period of uncertainty must not be too

long. He reminded that there had been a unanimous position of the EU leaders that there would not

be any negotiations before the notification on the Article 50 was submitted. Additionally, he called

for a constructive approach and an atmosphere of responsibility from both sides to face such complex

negotiations, highlighting the need to ensure an atmosphere of responsibility during the negotiations.

The duty to offer a more attractive model of the EU for the citizens was equally challenging, Mr

LAJČÁK

added. In this context, he said, the outcome of the informal summit organised in September

in Bratislava was expected to tackle these challenges. Referring to the issue of migration, he stressed

that this was not a seasonal issue and would require a strategic approach. The Minister expressed his

hope for the EU to be able to present a roadmap and plan for handling the crisis at the upcoming UN

summit on 19 September 2016. Responding to questions, he expressed the belief that, given the

complexity of the situation, a concept of creative solidarity where each country would contribute

doing its best to the global solution of the problem was the answer rather than a look at one single

aspect like the redistribution of refugees. According to him, administrative solutions would not solve

the problem and the question of sustainability was equally important when considering the solutions.

In response to the questions about the EU enlargement, Minister

LAJČÁK

stated that the credibility

of the process and the motivation of countries were very important factors. Finally, he closed his

intervention wishing that the Presidency would act as an honest broker in the areas of the Energy

Union, the social agenda and the Digital Single Market as well.

5. Social Dimension of the EU & Cohesion Policy - Triple A on social issues

Keynote speakers: Mr Mars DI BARTOLOMEO, President of the Luxembourg

Chambre des

Députés,

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Ms Marianne THYSSEN, European Commissioner for

Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility, and Mr Jan KELLER, Professor in

Sociology and Member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European

Parliament

Mr Mars DI BARTOLOMEO, President of the Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

stressed that

Social Dimension was a topic that deserved place in all sectoral policies, and recalled how one of the

priorities of the Luxembourg Presidency during the second half of 2015 had included this topic.

Referring to the recent Brexit vote, Mr DI BARTOLOMEO emphasised the importance of putting

the social dimension back in the centre of the European project. He lamented the side-lining of the

social dimension because of the perceived negative impact on economic affairs, calling this view

incorrect as there was plenty of added value to be gained through the creation of the welfare state and

social nets. The effects on the social dimension may not always be expressed in figures and euros, he

added.

He acknowledged that Europe faced tremendous social problems, including higher unemployment

rates within Member States; child poverty; and youth unemployment, stating this as a reason why a

financial balance between economic and social dimensions must be established in order to secure the

social cohesion of the EU.

Mr DI BARTOLOMEO warned against the harmful effects of the deconstruction of the welfare state.

He added that social dimension was achievable through various measures and policies, but stressed

the importance of evaluating every measure and tool through its social impact and respect the

subsidiarity principle.

Citing Greece as an example, Mr DI BARTOLOMEO stressed that economic programmes should

have been linked to social concerns to avoid social inequality.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

Specifically, he opined that Europe should set ambitious social targets, especially with regard to youth

unemployment and senior citizens facing unfavourable living conditions, and reducing illiteracy,

adding that social development aid should be reinforced through an allocation of means to the less

advantaged. He suggested that the Union, currently wearing the face of austerity measures, should be

given a more sympathetic face in order to renew the trust of its citizens in the European project.

Mr BARTOLOMEO advocated a bifocal view of social dimension and economic dimension, and

recommended to avoid simple populist answers. He stressed that Member States should strive for

“Triple A Social Rating”

adding that the European Commission had already done important work, in

the form of guarantees of the youth, assessments of individual countries, and a European investment

plan.

Mr BARTOLOMEO proposed a sectorial group on social cohesion to reinforce social dialogue and

offer advisory dialogue with social partners.

Concluding, Mr BARTOLOMEO said that Europe had to be a fort of fundamental values of human

dignity: Europe had to be social or it would not exist at all.

Ms Marianne THYSSEN, European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and

Labour Mobility, expressed the Commission’s commitment to deepen the social dimension of the

Union. She acknowledged that more social Europe was needed and said the Commission was fully

committed to achieve this. Nevertheless, she also recalled how this was primarily a competence of

national authorities where the EU added value in supporting and coordinating national policies.

In this regard, Ms THYSSEN said the Union would support Member States’ action to fight

social

exclusion and poverty; would strive to make European semester more social; would ensure better

protection of workers; as well as ensure better accessibility of products and services to people with

disabilities.

She called for the full use of the European Social Fund, which should be focussed on achieving results

for the people.

Ms THYSSEN said the Commission was building a longer-term agenda in the form of a social pillar

for human rights and, through a new skills agenda for Europe, would be supporting investment in

human capital through European fund for strategic investments.

Recalling the European social market economy model, Ms THYSSEN said the objective was to

achieve both social development and economic growth. She added that the internal single market was

the biggest achievement of this model and that this must be deepened while kept fair through rules

that ensured a level playing field for all and that protect consumers, the environment and workers.

Ms THYSSEN called the posting of workers directive, whose main objectives were to ensure fair

remuneration and conditions for workers, a balanced proposal resulting from analysis and

consultations with Member States and stakeholders. She said the essence of the proposal was that the

same rules for remuneration should apply for the same work in different locations, and stressed that

posted workers were not second-class workers. A number of reasoned opinions were issued

expressing concerns about this proposal and Ms THYSSEN welcomed the fact that national

Parliaments were using their voice in decision making, and made it a point to state that the

Commission had analysed these contributions in detail.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

She pointed out three common objections found in the reasoned opinions. The first objection was that

no European action was actually required and that problems would best be solved at national level,

to which Ms THYSSEN replied that the posting of workers directive was, by definition, of a cross-

border nature as rules on posting creates rights and obligations on both sides of the border. This,

according to Ms THYSSEN, required action at Union level, allowing a level playing field that could

not otherwise be achieved through unilateral action, which would lead to fragmentation.

The second objection

expressed national Parliaments’ concerns of interference with national

competence on remuneration and arranging industrial relations. Ms THYSSEN said this was not the

case, acknowledging that these were indeed competences of Member States and the Commission

proposal would respect this.

The final objection related to perceived restrictions of freedom to provide services and the removal

of competitive advantages enjoyed by lower wage countries and their businesses. Ms THYSSEN said

these concerns were not related to subsidiarity as they related to the impact of the proposed action.

She also could not see how the proposal would affect the provision of services: rules were needed to

provide services in a way that was fair for everybody.

Ms THYSSEN also stressed that the proposal added no administrative requirement. She said the

College would discuss reasoned opinions the following week and assured everyone that the

Commission was committed to pursue dialogue with national Parliaments and would continue to

engage with them in order to ensure that national Parliaments have a role to play along with the Union

institutions in European decision making.

Mr Jan KELLER, Professor in Sociology and Member of the Committee on Employment and Social

Affairs of the European Parliament, described the three pillars of social security: the coherent family

accentuated by conservatives; the labour market accentuated by liberals; and the welfare state

accentuated by socialists.

Mr KELLER said that all pillars are going through a crisis caused, in part, by the fact that the social

dimension was being subjected to the economic interest of major players, as exemplified by the

current trend of speaking about

“Triple A

Social Rating” and the transfer to the social area of terms

coined by financial markets.

He identified two models for ensuring welfare: the Scandinavian model where social security was

financed by taxes, and the continental model, like the one found in Germany and France, where it

was funded by social insurance. He acknowledged that, at the European level, the funding of the

social area should be done by individual Member States, with the social cohesion fund being only

additive.

Turning his attention to how the welfare state could be funded on an individual Member State level,

Mr KELLER said that the lower taxes pushed by investors and companies created a problem for

governments, who then reacted by decreasing taxes and increasing social insurance, while some

countries were also forced to reduce the cost of labour. This became permissible as the middle class

was not rich enough to access tax haven or threaten to leave country.

Therefore, a strong social model funded on a European level was, according to Mr KELLER, hard to

achieve given the pressures faced by Member States. A possible solution proposed by him was to

transfer the social market economy model, which was working for 20 years post war, to all the EU.

Mr KELLER identified another question faced by the Union, namely how to force the big

multinational corporations in behaving responsibly. He acknowledged that the EU could not influence

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

where corporations were based and sold and purchased their goods and services, but pointed out that

this leads to situations where countries that serve the purpose of assembly halls have average wage at

times lower than the countries that serve the purpose of research and innovation.

Mr KELLER warned that a higher degree of integration might not contribute to social protection, and

said “more Europe” did not necessarily mean more interference with the competence of the Member

State or more interference with the policies of international corporations, which are the culprits behind

the current situation.

Mr KELLER recognised that, if the EU chose to integrate more, then it would likely take over

competences from the Member States; he also asked whether this would provide any guarantee that

the new competences would be used to counter the effects of the corporations.

In the following debate 18 speakers took the floor.

The participants stressed the importance of focusing on and promoting the social dimension of the

EU, acknowledging at the same time that it was a matter falling into the realm of national competence.

Ms BIRCHALL said that cohesion policy was an example of the solidarity principle and an important

tool for investment. Among others, she mentioned the European Pillar of Social Rights to which

Romania was paying special attention. Mr Konstantinos EFSTATHIOU, Cyprus

Vouli ton

Antiprosopon,

spoke, among others, about the need to reshape social policy and to provide a response

to the fragile economic recovery and austerity measures applying neoliberal fiscal consolidation. He

supported the creation of more jobs especially for the youth, underlining the need for equality in every

aspect of life. Mr Tuur ELZINGA, Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

stressed the need for developing an inclusive

growth and securing decent work. Mr BIZET stressed, among others, the importance of cohesion

policy in helping the regions and the need for more economic convergence. He and Ms Regina

BASTOS, Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

stressed that it was necessary to support the principle

that same work deserved same pay. The latter also urged for implementing the social dimension in

the European Semester. Mr KOURAKIS mentioned the structural challenges which touched on EU

existence, including Brexit, the rise of Euroscepticism, the management of the refugees and

migrants’

flows and the humanitarian challenges that these entailed. He supported that Euroscepticism was not

the solution; an active role by the European Affairs Committees was needed to link EU policies to

the citizens. National division could only be avoided through unity and solidarity, he argued. Ms

AUROI supported the need to combat unemployment, to protect temporary workers and to stabilise

the economic union. She invited national Parliaments to participate in the proposed “green card” on

corporations’

social responsibility. Mr Marc ANGEL, Luxembourg

Chambre des Deputes,

asked

whether the European Commission had sufficiently linked the European Semester with Europe 2020.

Mr Rubén MORENO PALANQUES, Spanish

Cortes Generales,

observed that there had been no

progress in social integration and that it was necessary for economic and social criteria to be part of

the same equation.

Mr Jarosław OBREMSKI, Polish

Senat,

said that the answer to Brexit, from his point of view, was

not centralisation, but going back to the core. He argued that fighting social dumping meant a bigger

gap and bigger division. Artificial unification and lack of democracy was the main problem of Europe.

He argued that cooperation should be pursued only in relation to the exchange of best practices, but

not in relation to the social dimension.

Mr PALLING supported looking behind austerity measures and focusing on the reasons for those;

the implementation of structural reforms was key, he argued.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

A number of Parliamentarians who took the floor referred specifically to the proposal to amend the

Posting of Workers Directive. Among those, Ms Christine DEFRAIGNE, Belgian

Senat,

referred to

the jobs created in different domains including transport and expressed her concern about social

dumping. She said that the EU’s credibility was at stake and that the amendment of the Directive was

not about eliminating competitiveness, but about reviewing it to bring it under the standard regulatory

procedure. Mr ELZINGA stressed that the proposal was meant to stop the negative spiral caused by

social dumping, mentioning however that it was not the only instrument to address the problem. He

asked how the European Commission would take the concerns of national Parliaments expressed

through issuing

of a “yellow card” seriously. Ms BASTOS said that citizens demanded a social reply

from Europe and invited the European Commission to listen to the concerns expressed on the

Commission’s proposal, but maintain it. Mr Ramón Luis

VALCÁRCEL SISO, European Parliament,

said that the proposed revision was in the pipeline and that the European Parliament would not be

taking a decision until the European Commission had decided how to proceed after the

“yellow

card”.

He informed the participants that the European Parliament had debated the matter in plenary and that

many political groups had welcomed the proposal. He underlined that a revision to update the

Directive was necessary; it had been drafted in 1996 and it needed to reflect the expectations of

Europe’s people. Both Mr Antonín MAŠTALİŘ, Czech

Senát,

and Mr Richard HÖRCSIK,

Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

referred to the reasoned opinion issued by their respective Chambers. The

former reiterated the arguments expressed in the reasoned opinion issued by his Chamber as to why

the proposal was violating the principle of subsidiarity observing a big difference between the East

and the West, and further mentioned the need to protect the European steel industry. The latter

reiterated that the proposal would limit the freedom to provide services and would significantly distort

competition. Mr Konrad GŁĘBOCKI, Polish

Sejm,

also referred to the reasoned opinions issued by

11 Parliaments/Chambers, expressing his dissatisfaction as to the fact that the Commission had not

provided sufficient

reasoning as to the proposal’s compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Mr

Heinz-Joachim BARCHMANN, German

Bundestag,

underlined that it was necessary to come to a

good result regarding the Directive, but that it was also important to discuss corporate social

responsibility. He added that there was a need to improve the training of workers. Mr KOPF said that

the Directive was a protectionist measure creating problems to the weaker ones.

his reply, President DI BARTOLOMEO, supported the “Triple A Social Rating” and disagreed

with cooperation only in terms of exchange of best practices, underling the need to have a social pact

and a proper method of rating rather than a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. He insisted on the principle

of solidarity in reinforcing the social dimension. In relation to the implementation of structural

reforms, he said that this was very important, but that he wanted those measures to be complemented

by social measures to limit the collateral damage.

Responding to the interventions, Commissioner THYSSEN invited national Parliaments to

participate in the consultation process on the European Pillar of Social Rights. Regarding linking the

European Semester with Europe 2020, she said that the social dimension was already evident in the

country-specific recommendations. On the Commission Work Programme, she said that it was still

under preparation but that the social dimension would be part of it. On youth unemployment, she

mentioned the youth guarantee scheme, as well as the youth employment initiative funding. The

Commission was collecting data from the Member States and would publish its report in autumn, she

added. Regarding the settlement with the UK, the agreement with Mr Cameron would take effect only

if the referendum had resulted in the UK remaining in the EU; the referendum resulting in the UK

leaving the EU meant that the agreement was not valid. Regarding the proposal for amending the

Posting of Workers Directive, she informed the participants that she would report to the College of

Commissioners the following week which would decide whether to maintain, review or withdraw the

proposal. She clarified that this was not a Directive about enforcement, but about reviewing basic

rules. The objectives set could not be met and a review was necessary to improve social protection.

She assured the participants that subsidiarity was at the heart of the Commission’s policies. The

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 800: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-formandsmøde 10-12/7-16 i Bratislava

Commission was not harmonising wages, but was ensuring that what applied for local workers

applied also for posted workers. She said that the European Commission would be addressing a letter

to each national Parliament which issued a reasoned opinion and would be responding on all

arguments not only on those relating to subsidiarity.

In his reply, Professor KELLER, said that adopting the term

“Triple A Social Rating” gave the false

illusion that some economists were more creative than sociologists, which was unacceptable. He

referred to data showing the ratio of corporations paying taxes going down and the ratio of employees

paying taxes going up in Germany. Regarding the evaluation so far of the Europe 2020 strategy, the

strategy and cohesion policy were meant to eliminate disparities; however, the disparities between

2010 and 2015 had increased. He argued that the EU was moving away from the targets it had set for

itself.

In his concluding remarks, Mr BLAHA agreed that either there would be a reinforcement of the social

dimension of the EU or there would be no Union at all. He expressed support to Commissioner

THYSSEN's work, especially on the protection of the EU's social model. He concluded that a Europe

with a more human face was needed.