Europaudvalget 2016-17
EUU Alm.del Bilag 194
Offentligt
1695283_0001.png
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LVI COSAC
Bratislava, Slovakia, 14-15 November 2016
IN THE CHAIR: Mr �½uboš BLAHA, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs, Slovak
Národná rada.
AGENDA:
1. Opening session of the LVI COSAC
- Introductory remarks by Mr �½uboš BLAHA, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs,
Slovak
Národná rada
- Adoption of the agenda
-
Procedural issues and miscellaneous matters
Information on the results of the Presidential Troika of COSAC
Letters received by the Presidency
- Presentation of the 26th Bi-annual Report of COSAC by Ms Christiana FRYDA,
Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat
2. Session 1 - ‘State of Play of the Slovak Presidency of the Council of the European Union’
Keynote speaker: Mr Robert FICO, Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic
3. Session 2 - ‘Strengthening the role of national Parliaments in the EU’
Keynote speaker: Mr Frans TIMMERMANS, First Vice-President, European Commission
Panellists: Ms Ana BIRCHALL, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs, Romanian
Camera
Deputaţilor,
Mr Gunther KRICHBAUM, Chair of the Committee on the Affairs of the European
Union, German
Bundestag
Moderator: Mr Martin KLUS, Vice-Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the Slovak
Národná rada
Debate
4. Session 3 - ‘The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): a trade
agreement between the European Union and the United States (and its challenges,
opportunities and risks)’
Keynote speakers: Ms Susan GEORGE, political and social scientist, activist and writer on global
social justice; President of the Transnational Institute, Mr Hiddo HOUBEN, EU Deputy Chief
Negotiator of TTIP; Director, DG Trade of the European Commission
Panellists: Ms Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,
European Parliament, Ms Güler TURAN, Federal Advisory Committee on European Affairs,
Member of the Belgian
Sénat
and Flemish Parliament
Moderator: Ms Brigita SCHMӦGNEROVÁ, former Executive Secretary of the UN Economic
Commission for Europe; former Minister of Finance of the Slovak Republic
Debate
5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC
- Debate on the draft Contribution of the LVI COSAC
6. Session 4: ‘2016: Energy Union’s “year of delivery” ’
Keynote speaker: Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-President of the European Commission for Energy
Union
Panellists: Ms Danielle AUROI, Chair of the European affairs Committee of the French
Assemblée
nationale,
Mr Kalle PALLING, Chair of the European Affairs Committee,
Estonian Riigikogu,
Mr
António COSTA SILVA, Member of the European Affairs Committee, Portuguese
Assembleia da
República
Moderator: Ms Zuzana GABRI�½OVÁ, Editor-in-chief of Euractiv.sk
Debate
1
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
1695283_0002.png
7. Session 5: ‘Securing the external borders of the EU in the context of irregular migration’
Keynote speakers: Mr Robert KALIŇÁK, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior of the
Slovak Republic
Panellists: Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs, Hungarian
Országgyűlés,
Mr Lucio ROMANO, Vice-Chair of the Committee on European Affairs Policies,
Italian
Senato della Repubblica
Moderator: Ms Katarína CSÉFALVAYOVÁ, Vice-Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the
Slovak
Národná rada
Debate
8. Adoption of the Contribution of the LVI COSAC
PROCEEDINGS
1. Opening session of the LVI COSAC
1.1
Introductory remarks by Mr �½uboš BLAHA, Chair of the Committee on European
Affairs, Slovak
Národná rada
Mr �½uboš BLAHA, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the Slovak
Národná rada,
opened
the meeting and invited the plenary to observe a minute of silence in honour of the victims of the
Paris attacks that had taken place on 13 November 2015. He then welcomed the Chairs and
Committee members recently elected.
1.2
Adoption of the agenda
The Chair presented the draft agenda of the LVI COSAC, which was adopted without amendment.
Ms Lolita ČIGᾹNE, Latvian
Saeima,
thanked the Presidency for the possibility given to organise
the side event ‘Mobilization of human capital through innovative legislation’.
1.3
Procedural issues and miscellaneous matters
Information on the results of the Presidential Troika of COSAC
On the draft Contribution, Mr BLAHA explained that, after the Troika meeting the day before, a
new modified document incorporating proposed Troika amendments, as well as all the amendments
received until then,had been circulated. The original text, the amendments and the new modified
draft text, he added, were laid out in a table. He announced that further written amendments to the
draft Contribution would be electronically accepted until 12pm. He clarified that, in case a
delegation did not agree with the compromise text proposed by the Troika and insisted on its
amendment as previously submitted, it would asked to resubmit the amendment in question. The
compromise text and any new amendments would be discussed during the meeting of the
Chairpersons.
Letters received by the Presidency
The Chair referred to the following letters received by the Presidency:
Letter from Mr Jean-Charles ALLA VENA, Head of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mr
Christophe STEINER, Speaker of the National Council of the Principality of Monaco,
regarding participation at COSAC. After consultation with the Troika, a letter of invitation
had been sent out.
2
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
Letter from Mr Pedro AGRAMUNT, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (PACE), regarding participation at COSAC. After consultation with the
Troika, a letter of invitation had been sent out.
Letter from Mr Kalle PALLING, Chair of the European Union Affairs Committee of the
Estonian
Riigikogu,
regarding the informal consultations of the European Union Affairs
Committees of the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish Parliaments held in Tallinn on
8-9 September 2016.
Letter from Mr Ondřej BENEŠIK, Chair of the Committee for European Affairs of the
Czech
Polanecká snĕmovna
on the conclusions of the Meeting of the European Affairs
Committees of the Visegrad Group countries held in Velehrad on 3 October 2016.
Regarding the letter from Mr Vannino CHITI, Chair of the Committee on EU policies of the Italian
Senato della Repubblica,
he said he would come back to it at the meeting of the Chairpersons.
1.4
Presentation of the 26th Bi-annual Report of COSAC by Ms Christiana FRYDA,
Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat
Mr BLAHA then gave the floor to the Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat, Ms Christiana
FRYDA, to present the 26th Bi-annual Report of COSAC. The report consisted of three chapters: 1)
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union and the
United States: parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiation process, 2) Energy Union’s “year of
delivery”, 3) Improving the role of national Parliaments.
2. Session 1 - ‘State of Play of the Slovak Presidency of the Council of the European Union’
Keynote speaker: Mr Robert FICO, Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic
Mr Robert FICO, Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, welcomed the participants to the plenary
meeting of the LVI COSAC. He reflected on the Bratislava Summit that was organised in
September, which, he added, showed that Slovakia had been a reliable partner. He then mentioned
several key priorities for the Slovak Presidency, amongst others the need of an economic strong
European Union with a functioning banking and monetary union. In this regard, the trust of citizens
was crucial. Furthermore, he reflected on results achieved on the Digital Single Market and Energy
Union priorities. When it came to the asylum and migration policy, Mr FICO stressed that is was
important to keep in mind the strong relation between economies in the world. Summing up several
results of the past months, as well as those expected until the end of the Slovak Presidency,
including amongst others, the taxation package, the European Public Prosecutor's office, the Paris
Climate agreement and the enlargement policies, he concluded that so far the Presidency, despite all
the challenges that arose, could be considered successful.
In the debate that followed, 16 members took the floor. Several focussed on the possible Brexit and
its possible causes as well as effects for the EU. It would have an effect on the whole of Europe, as
was expressed by Mr Terry LEYDEN, Irish
Houses of the Oireachtas.
He urged to keep a special
focus on Ireland as it shared the border with the UK. Ms Colette MÉLOT, French
Sénat
pointed out
the new model of relations with the UK and asked what the results of the Bratislava summit were.
Meanwhile, Ms Rubina BERARDO, Portuguese
Assembleia da República,
stressing the importance
of trust and building confidence as was shown during the Bratislava Summit, pointed out the need
for concrete measures, for example to tackle youth unemployment. Mr Karlheinz KOPF, Austrian
Nationalrat,
mentioned the need for the EU to take into account the tremendous changes in society
and concerns of citizens, underlining the role of national Parliaments. At the same time, according
3
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
to Mr Ignacio SÁNCHEZ, Spanish
Congreso de los Diputados,
the movement for Brexit showed
the European Commission had to play a role in order to balance the Council, where Member States
were pursuing their own interest.
Another topic mentioned by many was the migration crisis. As the EU was on crossroads and it was
clear that safety and security were key elements in solving the crisis, Yiorgos LILLIKAS, Cyprus
Vouli ton Antiprosopon,
stressed that now the political will to act was needed and asked for full
implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement.
Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK, Hungarian
Országgyűlés,
expressed general support for the priorities of the
Slovak Presidency, including, amongst others, the progress on enlargement of the EU, a sentiment
which was echoed by Ms Elvira KOVACS, Serbian
Narodna skupština.
Mr HÖRCSIK asked the
outcome of the referendum in Hungary to be respected; it showed that a mandatory mechanism in
tackling the migration crisis was not the right instrument, as having control of the borders should
be. Mr Gunter KRICHBAUM, German
Bundestag,
pointed out that solidarity was needed in order
to tackle problems, adding that it was not something to call upon only when it served particular
interests. Solidarity went, he continued, hand in hand with commitments. According to Mr Luciano
BUSSUTIL, Maltese
Kamra tad-Deputati,
the question was whether all embraced the same concept
of solidarity, as it was an essential element in the approach to the problem. Mr Malik AZMANI,
Netherlands
Tweede Kamer,
asked the Presidency on the progress made on the dossier of migration,
as well as on the asylum system.
A few members pointed to the situation in Turkey, expressing their concerns on the situation there.
For example, Mr Simon SUTOUR, French
Sénat,
expressed that focus on Turkey was needed, as
the country was abandoning core democratic values, while it should respect the rights of minorities.
Ms Zehra TAŞKESENLİOĞLU, Turkish
Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi,
stressed that her country
had always respected the Rule of Law when taking measures against the coup attack and against
terrorists that were acting against democracy.
Ms Valeria CARDINALI, Italian
Senato della Repubblica,
referred to the recent earthquakes in
Italy, and while expressing gratitude for the support received, she asked for solidarity and flexibility
in applying the rules of the Stability and Growth pact.
In his reply to the questions raised, Mr FICO underlined the importance of the Bratislava Summit,
which delivered a roadmap with priorities that needed a follow-up. On the Brexit issue, it was
agreed that a new model was needed for the relation between the EU and the UK, with Norway and
Switzerland serving as examples. He stressed that there should be no cherry picking politics; the
four basic freedoms should not be subject to negotiation.
Mr FICO pointed out that the EU had focussed too much on its own problems and much work was
needed in order to achieve the results of the EU2020 strategy. Keeping promises to EU citizens was
key when tackling issues like migration. He concluded that the US elections showed that the world
differed from how the media pictured it; it was necessary to proceed in a different way. He stressed
that solutions in the EU could not be found in picking individual topics like unemployment hoping
it would solve everything. National Parliaments played a key role, and closer cooperation between
legislative and executive forces was crucial.
In addition to the answers given by Mr FICO, Mr Ivan KORČOK, Plenipotentiary of the
Government for the Slovak Presidency in the Council of the EU, replacing Mr FICO who had to
attend other urgent obligations, focussed on sustainable migration and asylum policy. As migration
4
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
was not new, the real problem was the total loss of border control. The Slovak Presidency relied on
three main principles in finding a solution: first, on having functioning control of the EU’s external
borders; second, on tackling the root causes of migration; and third on using solidarity in an
effective way.
He confirmed that a dialogue between the EU and Turkey was needed more than ever before, not
only on the EU-Turkey agreement, but also on, for example, topics such as the rule of law and
media. Furthermore, he stated that the USA was the EU’s closest ally when it came to external
issues, and it was necessary for the EU to formulate their interests.
Mr KORČOK concluded by stressing that more than ever there was a need for stronger engagement
of Parliaments and for communication with the public.
3. Session 2 - ‘Strengthening the role of national parliaments in the EU’
Keynote speaker: Mr Frans TIMMERMANS, First Vice-President, European Commission
Panellists: Ms Ana BIRCHALL, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs, Romanian
Camera
Deputaţilor,
Mr Gunther KRICHBAUM, Chair of the Committee on the Affairs of the European
Union, German
Bundestag
Moderator: Mr Martin KLUS, Vice-Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the Slovak
Národná rada
After a short introduction by the Chair, Mr TIMMERMANS started with remarks on the situation
the EU was facing. He pointed out that the whole world was changing and the EU needed to adapt
to these changes. There would be many challenges, including different jobs requiring different skills
in the future, he added. Together with these challenges there was a shift in the expectations of EU
citizens to which the EU would need to react. National Parliaments, as home to some of the closest
elected representatives, should be involved in this process.
Mr TIMMERMANS stressed that the European Commission within its current mandate had been
very serious about listening to and visiting national Parliaments over its term. He continued with an
example of the latest “yellow card” on the posting of workers, whereby, according to the Vice-
president, the European Commission prepared an extensive response tackling the concerns of the
national Parliaments, and not merely those concerning subsidiarity, but also with regard to political
issues.
When addressing the involvement of Parliaments in the legislative dialogue, he specifically
mentioned key tools of a better law making process - external stakeholder input, early stage
involvement and REFIT platform of the European Commission. It would be sometimes better to
look back and review the existing legislation, which was sometimes forgotten in the process, added
the Commissioner. Mr TIMMERMANS tackled the issue of clear responsibility, which would help
to communicate the legislative acts to citizens better. The relation between the rule of law,
democracy and human rights was key to the functioning of the EU, he stressed. The true essence of
democracy was respect for minorities and diversity.
The moderator, Mr Martin KLUS, Vice-chair of the Committee on European Affairs of the Slovak
Národná rada,
introduced the panellists and raised a few questions regarding the provisions of the
so-called “red card” mechanism, which were part of the void EU - UK deal, the better inclusion of
national Parliaments’ perspective by the EU institutions and on whether the national Parliaments
should follow the Brexit negotiation process in an institutionalised and joint way.
5
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
The first panellist, Ms Anna BIRCHALL, Vice-chair of the Committee on European Affairs, of the
Romanian Romanian
Camera Deputaţilor,
did not see any reason for using the “red card”
mechanism, which, according to her, would not make any difference to the role of national
Parliaments. It was the attitude which needed to change, taking into consideration the concerns of
national Parliaments by visiting and explaining the positions, she added. Ms BIRCHALL expressed
her support to the European Commission in its effort and stated that no treaty change was required.
She remarked that the actual rejection of the currently triggered “yellow card” on the posted
workers directive could result in overall scepticism towards these established procedures.
Mr Gunther KRICHBAUM, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs of the German
Bundestag,
as the second panellist, pointed to the differences in working procedures of the national
Parliaments, specifying that some had entire departments involved in the EU issues, including an
office in Brussels, while some had barely some personnel involved. He raised the question whether
the COSAC platform was used to its full potential and suggested that the Presidency should have
flexibility on introducing current issues in the programme of the meeting. Mr KRICHBAUM
voiced his criticism aimed at delegates reading their written statements, supporting that COSAC
should remain a free forum of debate. Developing on working methods, he mentioned that the
German
Bundestag
had direct influence on the federal government in relation to EU issues. In
relation to questions raised by the moderator, he said that the national Parliaments needed to
cooperate more with the European Parliament, mentioning the current case of establishing the
scrutiny procedure for EUROPOL. Mr KRICHBAUM mentioned that the national Parliaments were
not only intermediaries, but also the guarantors of democratic legitimacy.
Thirty-seven participants intervened in the debate.
Many speakers concentrated on the issue of increasing trust in the EU following the UK referendum
Solidarity was the key to the current challenges, according to Ms Regina BASTOS, Portuguese
Assembleia da República,
and there was a need for the EU to act as a leader to recover the trust.
Higher transparency in financial area was required, Ms BASTOS added. Mr Gerard
GRAUGHWELL, Irish
Houses of the Oireachtas,
called for a deal with the UK without disturbing
the relations and the treaties, as an acceptable solution for all involved. This was supported by Lord
Timothy BOSWELL, UK
House of Lords.
Mr GRAUGHWELL urged politicians to be good
Europeans in order to fight against populism.
During the Bratislava Parliamentary Summit the loss of confidence was identified, remarked Mr
Anastasios KOURAKIS, Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon,
remarked that the loss of confidence was
identified during the Bratislava Parliamentary Summit, adding that more signals might be heard in
the future, and that it was therefore necessary to draw lessons from Brexit. Unpredictability of the
electorate in recent period was identified as a phenomenon by Mr Kamal Izidor SHAKER,
Slovenian
Državni Zbor.
The trust in the EU within the post Brexit context was raised as important
for Mr Georgios KAROULLAS, Cyprus
Vouli ton Antiprosopon.
In order to bridge the democratic
gap, national Parliaments needed to cooperate and work for EU citizens, starting from the beginning
of the legislative process, Mr Konstantinos EFSTATHIOU, Cyprus
Vouli ton Antiprosopon,
noted.
According to Sir William CASH, UK
House of Commons,
the increase in trust would be needed to
overcome the democratic crisis. Mr Jokin BILDARRATZ, Spanish
Senado,
thought that focussing
on the interests of citizens rather than those of states, as well as listening to citizens were both
required for the EU’s transformation. The citizens would like to see their expectations reflected into
actions, said Ms Danielle AUROI, French
Assemlée nationale,
and was supported by Mr Richárd
HÖRCSIK, Hungarian
Országgyűlés.
Mr Jaak MADISON, Estonian
Riigikogu,
when referring to
6
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
the functioning of the EU, pointed out that in the EU it was only certain political parties and certain
countries who were dominating EU politics and that the needs of British people were not reflected.
Ms Danuta Maria HÜBNER, European Parliament, stressed that the desire to build a greater
responsibility was present and that the national Parliaments were closer to EU citizens, which could
help promote the European issues and make them aware of the importance of EU elections too.
Centralised decision-making process’ efforts after the Lisbon Treaty were one of the responsible
factors for the current situation, said Mr Tibor BANA, Hungarian
Országgyűlés.
Mr Peter LUYKX,
Belgian
Chambre des représentants,
noted that minorities should be shown respect, but that these in
turn had to respect the results of election results, while referring to the EU as a puzzle of identities.
The EU would need to be made legitimate to its citizens in order to guarantee its future, expressed
Ms Anneta KAVVADIA,
Greek Vouli ton Ellinon.
A recurring topic was the “yellow card”, the proposed “green card” and a possible “red card”. Some
speakers stated that there was no need for another (red) card instrument (Mr BENEŠÍK, Mr
KOURAKIS), as it would make the process more complicated (Mr Philippe MAHOUX, Belgian
Sénat),
with one speaker referring to it as a “drama piece” (Mr Miguel TIAGO, Portuguese
Assembleia da República).
They would rather see the “green card” explored (Mr KAROULLAS
and Ms Marietta KARAMANLI, French
Assemblée nationale)
as a tool of cooperation between the
national Parliaments and the European Parliament (Ms MÉLOT) to boost the EU policies (Mr
KOURAKIS); the example of food waste legislation was used as a reference (Ms AUROI).
The disappointment with the most recent “yellow card” was voiced by Mr Jarosław OBREMSKI,
Polish
Senat,
and Ms Izabela KLOC, Polish
Sejm,
who mentioned the defence of workers’ rights of
only eleven countries in the revision. Empathy in this case was required, said Mr Ondřej BENEŠÍK,
Czech
Poslanecká Sněmovna;
he appreciated the attitude of the European Commission, though the
answers to the “yellow card”, according to him, were vague.
As to the COSAC meetings and the cooperation among Parliaments, according to Ms Åsa
ROMSON, Swedish
Riksdag),
Mr Anne MULDER, Dutch
Tweede Kamer,
and Mr MADISON, the
cooperation between the national Parliaments could be further improved. Ms ČIGᾹNE thought that
reviewing practices in COSAC and introducing debates on hot topics, as well as listening to
colleagues’ opinions could help in this improvement. Tackling the frequency of COSAC meetings,
Mr Yves POZZO DI BORGO, French
Sénat,
said that this platform deserved more frequent
meetings given the importance of national Parliaments’ voice. The lack of sharing best practices
and differences in opinions among Parliaments and governments should be tackled when aiming at
intensifying the dialogue with Parliaments, said Ms KARAMANLI.
According to Mr Giovanni MAURO, Italian
Camera dei Deputati,
the European Commission
should allow more room for national Parliaments when dealing with the migration issue. Extending
the deadline from eight weeks to 10 weeks when reacting to the legislative proposals and sending
these back to national Parliaments was suggested by Mr Stefan SCHENNACH, Austrian
Bundesrat,
who together with Mr SUTOUR voiced their concerns in relation to the delegated acts and
trilogues. These, according to Mr SUTOUR, should be subject to scrutiny by national Parliaments
and thus provide more transparency.
Mr MULDER suggested organising so-called Brussels days for national parliamentarians by the
European Commission, which would enhance the dialogue. The need for more meetings of national
Parliaments was supported by Mr SHAKER.
7
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
Domestic arrangements regarding the work of the committees of European Affairs and scrutiny
mechanisms had the potential to improve the role of national Parliaments according to Ms
ČIGᾹNE. This was echoed by Ms Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN, Finnish
Eduskunta,
giving Finland’s
example, where the government after the Council meetings referred back to all stakeholders
involved; that could be arranged nationally, she added. Mr PRETZELL added that national
Parliaments should demand their right for information. Mr GRANT invited the parliamentarians to
control their ministers better.
Mr Dorin Silviu PETREA, Romanian
Camera Deputaţilor,
remarked that a new communication
strategy for the EU was needed, including frank speech, admitting past mistakes; he stressed that
the national Parliaments were those to lead this initiative to tackle arguments of populists. The rule
of law and democracy were listed as important elements in overcoming the current situation, said
Mr Johannes
HÜBNER, Austrian
Nationalrat;
no cherry picking should be possible, he added in the
context of the UK and Swiss referenda.
In response to the remarks and questions, Vice-president TIMMERMANS expressed the view that
the institutions needed to be re-calibrated. Often, he said, it was not easy to find a balance in
between; some Parliaments expressed support, and others were against specific legislative
initiatives, while the governments within the Council were mostly supportive. Commissioner
THYSSEN’s visit to national Parliaments, he said, aimed at responding to the concerns. In relation
to the “red card”, the Commissioner expressed that this would lead to the end of the community
method and the qualified majority and would make the process fully inter-governmental, which
would eventually result in loss of national Parliaments’ influence. He called for mutual
understanding. The Vice-president informed that he would push for more visits of commissioners in
national Parliaments over the next year to address specific topics. Despite the loss of trust, citizens’
support for policies was evident, and that should be the starting point for moving on with the
debate.
Better communication between the European Commission and national Parliaments was needed,
expressed Ms BIRCHALL in following up on questions from the audience, making a special
reference to the “yellow card”. She underlined the existence of a task for parliamentarians and
Parliaments to regain trust from EU citizens and the new communication strategy could help to
perform such task. Following up on the second round of questions and remarks from the audience,
Ms BIRCHALL expressed her full support for the so-called Brussels day(s) for national
parliamentarians and for more COSAC meetings. Referring to the “yellow card” procedure, she
reflected that it would be better to suspend the legislative procedure while having a dialogue with
national Parliaments, since the current situation might result into feeling that the voices were not
being heard. She suggested that the proposals for discussions be collected and sent to the Maltese
Presidency in order to have a rich debate on the topics in question.
Mr KRICHBAUM stressed that there was a need to understand national Parliaments’ members,
since they did not have the leverage over the European Commission that the European Parliament
had. According to him, the loss of trust and confidence resulted from a perception of globalisation’s
impact; it would be up to the national Parliaments to make sure the globalisation would not be at the
expense of citizens. To prove this, the principles of social Europe should be implemented in trade
treaties, he added. In addition, Mr KRICHBAUM reflected on the need for strong commitment of
politicians taking inspiration from the situation after the WWII. He added that tackling terrorism
and improving security required a unified approach that would be better than a weakening one-by-
one approach, which might be a preferred option by Moscow.
8
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
4. Session 3 - ‘The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): a trade
agreement between the European Union and the United States (and its challenges,
opportunities and risks)’
Keynote speakers: Ms Susan GEORGE, political and social scientist, activist and writer on global
social justice; President of the Transnational Institute, Mr Hiddo HOUBEN, EU Deputy Chief
Negotiator of TTIP; Director, DG Trade of the European Commission
Panellists: Ms Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,
European Parliament, Ms Güler TURAN, Federal Advisory Committee on European Affairs,
Member of the Belgian
Sénat
and Flemish Parliament
Moderator: Ms Brigita SCHMӦGNEROVÁ, former Executive Secretary of the UN Economic
Commission for Europe; former Minister of Finance of the Slovak Republic
Mr Hiddo HOUBEN, EU Deputy Chief Negotiator of TTIP, Director at DG Trade of the European
Commission, recalled that negotiations were launched in 2013 on the basis of a unanimous and
public mandate from the EU Member States. In addition, this mandate was followed by two
resolutions of the European Parliament. He recalled the fact that trade was one of the funding
policies of the Union and insisted on the fact that for both negotiating parties the goal was to
establish the highest standard agreement. Mr HOUBEN also pointed out that, compared to earlier
similar agreements, the normative aspect in TTIP was a new element. Concerning the regulatory
cooperation, he declared that the aim of the European Commission was to increase the standard of
protection between the two economies. He admitted that differences would remain in a few areas
like food standards, chemicals etc. On the current state of play, Mr HOUBEN reminded that,
although more than half of the technical work had been done and although it was possible to reach
an overall stable and conclusive document before the end of the Obama administration, the difficult
part was about to start. Pointing out that trade policy ought to become a genuine EU policy,
developed by all actors of the EU, he expressed the wish of the European Commission to facilitate a
transparent debate based on facts. Closing his initial remarks, Mr HOUBEN reminded the audience
of the coming adjudication of the EU Court of Justice about the scope of trade policy and about the
competences of the EU, and stressed the fact that the entire exercise of the TTIP negotiations had
been conducted under the oversight of the Council and the European Parliament. Nevertheless, he
admitted that the role of trade had changed and that it was fair to accept that the national
Parliaments played a role in the definition of these kinds of treaties. Furthermore, he recognised a
change of perspective on trade, whereby in the 20th century trade policy was about protection of
producers, while in the 21st century the accent was more on protecting consumers. Mr HOUBEN
concluded by saying that the case for openness of economy and free trade, that had helped reduce
inequalities between countries, had to be won again by better mastering globalisation.
The second keynote speaker, Ms GEORGE, presented what she called a brief ‘Decalogue of
reasons’ to oppose the ongoing TTIP negotiations, while stressing that the reason behind it was not
opposition to the concept of free trade. She named as first reason secrecy stating that the EU had
begun negotiating with a mandate whose authors were unknown and stressed that most information
came from leaks. She then referred to the enormous presence of transnational corporations in the
negotiating process: 93 % of meetings involved them. Ms GEORGE continued that the EU study,
supposedly backing the negotiations, was flawed quoting economist Jeronim Capaldo of TUFTS
University who, using a different economic model, concluded that the agreement would lead to the
loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, considerable loss of labour income and of financial stability.
Enumerating other reasons, Ms GEORGE declared that trade was not the core of the agreement, as
it was essentially about investments. While she declared that she was generally in favour of
9
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
abolishing trade tariffs, she stood in favour of high tariffs in the field of agriculture to protect the
EU farmers from the power of the American agriculture scale. She also mentioned the issue of
geographical indication as a tossing point, claiming that only 13% of the EU geographical
indications were recognised by the US. She justified her opposition, mentioning also the Investor to
State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system according to which corporates could sue States if the
corporation could claim that its interests expectations, present or future, were not respected or
jeopardised by Sate decisions or action. According to her, the International Court System adopted in
the recent CETA agreement with Canada was the same and did not represent an improvement. She
subsequently declared that, when it came to the regulatory cooperation, the vagueness of the part
hinted more to a bill of rights of corporations. She insisted that as far as rights of workers,
environment laws, etc. the documents produced thus far contained no binding elements. She stated
that taking away from the legislator the capacity to regulate, the capacity to adjudicate from the
judiciary was a concrete threat to democracy. Ms GEORGE also indicated that, if the negotiations
on TTIP went through, there would be an increase in global warming due to unlimited exploitation
of fossil fuels. To conclude, she recalled the self-organised citizen initiative supported by 3.5
million EU citizens from 23 EU Member States opposing TTIP.
The moderator of the debate, Ms Brigita SCHMÖGNEROVÁ, former Executive Secretary of the
UN Economic Commission for Europe; former Minister of Finance of the Slovak Republic asked
the panellists to react to the keynote speeches, in particular on the issue whether it was right to
conclude that TTIP negotiations encountered at this stage only technical problems. Also, she asked
if, after the outcome of the American Presidential elections, it would be correct to say that TTIP
was dead, while for sure the CETA was not.
The first panellist, Ms Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Chair of the EP Committee on Constitutional
Affairs, said that, if it was up to the Americans to decide whether to go on negotiating, the decision
to pause for a while and reflect would be a mutual decision. She conceded that Trump’s
declarations were not in favour of trade agreements, but she stressed that he was not the only player.
Other players were the business community, the research community, etc. Commenting on the
CETA agreement, she said that, although the European Parliament’s consent was scheduled in
December, the lack of clarity concerning the value of many Member States’ additional declarations
may mean that the vote would be postponed. She concluded admitting that all institutional players
had failed to show to EU citizens that globalisation was made for them. She reminded that the last
public debate on trade in general was carried out during the 90s. To her, the current crisis had the
positive effect to have made the debate to take place again.
The second panellist, Ms Güler TURAN, Belgian
Sénat,
also declared that her criticism was not due
to opposition to free trade, which had actually improved the conditions of hundreds of millions of
people, but due to the lack of transparency that reigned in the TTIP negotiations. She expressed the
opinion that the corporate-driven globalisation was out of control, therefore causing the crumbling
support to trade agreements in Europe. The recent Walloon opposition to CETA was, according to
her, motivated by the civil society’s concerns. She appealed fora new start for trade agreements in
the context of a different kind of global economy with ambitious standards against corporate
interests.
Thirty-three Parliamentarians took part in the debate.
In the first round of interventions, participants criticised the TTIP negotiations by mentioning the
issue of transparency and the risks linked to the ISDS system (Mr Stefanos STEFANOU, Cyprus
Vouli ton Antiprosopon),
the fact that the agreement was just a favour to corporates (Mr BANA),
10
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
the unreliable numbers that supported the negotiations and the unwillingness of the European
Commission to accept that things had changed (Ms AUROI), and the undemocratic nature of the
agreement (Ms Anneta KAVADDIA, Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon).
Among those who clearly supported the free trade negotiations with the US, many saw the
agreement as a strategic step for the EU member States. Some insisted on the necessary balance that
the ambitious project must seek, in order to insure a high level of regulatory cooperation, coherence
with other EU policies in terms of geographical indications and food standards (Ms Maria de la
Concepción DE SANTA ANA, Spanish
Congreso de los Diputados).
Others stressed the need to
show the benefits that the agreement negotiated in transparency would bring to the EU citizens,
which was an important task also for the national Parliaments (Ms BIRCHALL). Mr Mats
LUDSTRUM, Finnish
Eduskunta,
regretted the loss of pace in the negotiations and stressed that the
lesson of the CETA debacle should not be wasted. He insisted that public concern had to be taken
into consideration. He underlined the risk that negotiations could be blocked with a view to
increasing their bargaining power. Mr Svein Roald HANSEN, Norwegian
Stortinget,
stressed that
TTIP would have an impact on the single market and that it was imperative to ensure that no
barriers would result between the EU and the EFA countries. Ms KARAMANLI stressed that it was
necessary to ensure that the increase in trade between the EU and US would not lead to decrease of
trade among EU Member States. She also put accent on the need to reinforce safeguards on EU
standards. Ms Colette MÉLOT, French
Sénat,
underlined the fact that by signing such an agreement
the EU and the US would recognise that they were on equal foot. She underlined also the role of
national Parliaments in the adoption of the agreement. She insisted that the agreement should not be
used to grant extraterritoriality to the US legislation. Mr Börje VESTLUND, Swedish
Riksdag,
fully supported fair trade relations, because they were in line with democratic principles. He
stressed that, due to the negotiations, there was an improvement in transparency, standards and
other key objectives of the EU citizens. He stated that the dispute settlement scheme had still to be
developed in order to reassure the EU’s concerns.
Mr Bastiaan VAN APELDOORN, Dutch
Eerste Kamer,
recognised that the TTIP was a
controversial subject. He asked whether Ms GEORGE’s Decalogue applied also to CETA and
wondered if the TTIP would be defined as a mixed agreement. The need to grant full transparency
was voiced also by Mr Maximos CHARAKOPOULOS, Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon.
Mr Dominik
TARCZINSKY, Polish
Sejm,
wondered what the EU would do in case the USA did not change its
stance on the issue of public procurement. He blamed the lack of transparency entirely on the
Commission.
Reacting to the first round of interventions, Mr HOUBEN highlighted that, although President
Trump had made a number of protectionist statements, he never mentioned TTIP. He further
stressed that the EU would be reviewing its position according to the official US statement when it
came. According to him, national Parliaments were free to give their respective governments
whatever indication concerning the mandate of negotiations and that would have an influence in the
process itself. He replied to critical remarks made, among others, on transparency, communicating
with citizens, secret negotiations, lowering standards of protection mentioning the publicity of the
mandate, the oversight of both the Council and the EP, the publicity of the EC position at every
stage of the negotiations, and the reading rooms. Commenting on aspects of trade on agriculture, he
stressed that the EU had a net surplus in trade with US. As far as the geographical indications were
concerned, Mr HOUBEN underlined that it was something the EU could obtain through
negotiations. He also stressed that only by negotiating with the US, could the EU promote trade of
its own products and services. Concluding, he underlined the difference of nature of the
International Court System, which represented a clear improvement compared to the ISDN.
11
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
Ms HÜBNER first stressed the high degree of protection in terms of the EU standards (labour, food
safety, geographic indications, public procurement at all levels, SME) the CETA agreement
represented. She went on underlining that the alternative to the EU-US TTIP agreement would be a
number of bilateral agreements. As far as the transparency of the negotiations, she recalled that the
Chief Negotiator was auditioned by the EP Committee on International Trade before and after each
round and all documents were made public. In her opinion, the ICS was an achievement, as well as
a result of some Member States and of the EP.
Ms TURAN made a short recollection of the recent CETA events referring also to the provisional
entry into force of some parts of the agreement with Canada. She continued stressing that people
opposing TTIP were not supporting trade barriers, but were fighting against the democratic deficit
of the process. She voiced the fear that within TTIP as it looked like at that moment, some
procedures would make the voice of Parliaments irrelevant. She nevertheless acknowledged that
transparency had somewhat improved.
Ms GEORGE warned against believing in a bucolic picture of Canada. She claimed that US
corporates were ruling Canada’s economy and could use CETA to sue the EU governments.
Elaborating about the principle of mutual recognition, she declared that this implied the end of the
precaution principle. She again referred to different economic models according to which the
agreement would provoke a contraction of wages. Her opinion was that the EU citizens ought to
pay special attention to their services which, unless listed specifically, would risk being privatised.
Concluding on the publicity of the mandate, she insisted that it had been leaked and that the name
of the authors were not known.
In the second round of interventions, support for the ongoing negotiations was expressed by Mr
SHAKER, who informed COSAC that the TTIP was object of many debates in his country, and
who stated that the outcome showed the need for the EU to press for the highest transparency
possible. His opinion was that this objective had been reached. Similar support was voiced by Mr
PALLING. Mr Dorin-Mircea DOBRA, Romanian
Senat,
stressed that for the EU, the transatlantic
relations were the most important ones and that they must be consolidated. He underlined the fact
that in the coming years the EU had the opportunity to play a leading role at the global level in such
negotiations. Mr Jukka KOPRA, Finnish
Eduskunta,
expressed full support to the EU negotiators.
He stressed that the citizens had to be taken into account and that the institutions should explain the
negotiations to them. Ms Antonia COSTA SILVA, Portuguese
Assembleia da República,
stated that
for Portugal the agreement was a priority, but should be discussed at length to avoid negative
impact. She concluded indicating the need to ensure a coherent fight against tax heavens. Ms Kate
GREEN, UK
House of Commons,
stressed that the EU had the opportunity, through the
negotiations, to improve the protection of social standards. For Mr GRANT, the TTIP was the
biggest ever test for the EU institutions. Mr Richard KOLS, Lithuanian
Seimas,
reminded everyone
that some 30 Trade agreements had been negotiated and concluded by the EU in the same format,
including with countries like Vietnam, and none had raised opposition. He insisted that a mandate
had been given unanimously by the governments of the Member States to the Commission and that
the Commission was working within the framework traced by the treaties. Mr KRICHBAUM
recalled that free trade agreements always brought benefits to the EU. For him, it was in the EU’s
paramount interest to achieve the end of negotiations; he denounced such a harsh debate at this
point as a sign of growing anti-Americanism. Mr Hannes WEININGER, Austrian
Nationalrat,
blamed the lack of honesty and courage of the politicians when answering to the citizens.
12
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
On the opposite side, Mr Franc TRČEK, Slovenian
Državni zbor,
expressed the view of the
minority of his Parliament mentioning the democratic deficit of TTIP. He also stressed that many
local administrations opposed these agreements. Ms Oudekki LOONE, Estonian
Riigikogu,
expressed her gratitude to Ms GEORGE and invited everyone to refrain from optimistic messages.
For her, the TTIP was about making life easier for multinationals. Mr KOURAKIS stressed how
every day social unrest was growing. He affirmed that for SMEs the benefits of the agreement
would be minimal, while there would no longer be any obstacle for the growth of multinationals. He
stated that under the proposed framework they would no longer be accountable.
Ms Idoia VILLANUEVA, Spanish
Senado,
pointed to clear signs of the growing distrust in the EU
project amidst the trouble experienced by the transatlantic trade agreements. Mr Marc ANGEL,
Luxembourg
Chambre des Députés,
considered the TTIP a process facing a slow death. Mr
PRETZELL expressed his adhesion to the views of Ms GEORGE and thanked her for her work. Mr
Igor PIMENOVS, Latvian
Saeima,
wondered if the TTIP could really contribute to the
competitiveness of SMEs, and if it could have beneficial influence for EU Member States. A final
critique came from Mr Gerard CRAUGHWELL, Irish
Houses of the Oireachtas,
who condemned
the process of negotiations initiated by faceless people. He indicated that the EU agriculture could
be destroyed because of the agreement. He also stressed the limitations of access to the reading
rooms.
In the final response to all interventions, Ms TURAN stressed that norms that were under
discussion had immediate implications for the lives of all. She acknowledged that trade agreements
were very important, especially those with US and Canada and underlined that the EU had to seize
the opportunity to strengthen its values. Although recognising the US as very important partners,
she recalled the equal importance of other partners and other international norms like the ones of
ILO. Finally, Ms TURAN agreed that the European Commission had a mandate, but insisted on
Parliaments’ duty to always take a good look at the content of negotiations. Balanced trade
agreements were the objective of the Union, according to her.
Ms HÜBNER recalled the procedure that had led to the mandate. She recalled that all EU actors
were involved and reminded the national Parliaments of their obligation to scrutinise their
governments when the mandate was being defined. She praised the ICS which would be composed
by judges appointed by the parties and she rejected the idea that the right to regulate was under
threat.
Mr HOUBEN expressed his appreciation for the rich and deep debate. He stressed that it was
important to define together how relations with national Parliaments would be structured in the
future as far as trade was concerned. He recalled the looming adjudication of the EU Court of
Justice concerning the competences in the field of trade. He recalled the legal framework as
indicated by the treaties according to which the main responsibility in terms of scrutiny was the EP.
Finally, Ms GEORGE also expressed her appreciation for the quality of the discussion and the
alertness of the national Parliaments.
5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC
The Chair informed that all delegations had received a table with the original draft text of the
contributions circulated on 31 October 2016, the amendments submitted by delegations before the
meeting, a modified compromise text following the Troika's meeting the day before, as well as new
amendments submitted by the deadline of 12pm that day. A discussion as to the procedure of
13
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
examining the amendments and as to whether each of these should have been discussed and put to a
vote followed. In this context, the Chair reiterated the guidance that had already been given by the
Presidency according to which only amendments that were resubmitted on the modified
compromise text by noon were going to be examined. The guidance was accepted as a compromise
by the delegations. Following an animated debate and voting in cases of controversy, an amended
text of the draft Contribution of the LVI COSAC was agreed.
As to the letter from Mr CHITI, the Chair reiterated that it would be difficult for any national
Parliament to organise such a visit outside the territory of its own country. He proposed that the
Italian Parliament organise such a visit, which could be administratively supported by the COSAC
Secretariat, clarifying that the latter could provide e-mail contacts. In response, Mr ROMANO
acknowledged that it was not feasible to organise such a visit under the Slovak Presidency.
6. Session 4: ‘2016: Energy Union’s “year of delivery” ’
Keynote speaker: Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-President of the European Commission for Energy
Union
Panellists: Ms Danielle AUROI, Chair of the European affairs Committee of the French
Assemblée
nationale,
Mr Kalle PALLING, Chair of the European Affairs Committee,
Estonian Riigikogu,
Mr
António COSTA SILVA, Member of the European Affairs Committee, Portuguese
Assembleia da
República
Moderator: Ms Zuzana GABRI�½OVÁ, Editor-in-chief of Euractiv.sk
Addressing the LVI COSAC, Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-President of the EU Commission, hailed
the new energy being poured into the partnership with national Parliaments, citing more than 400
visits and meetings with national Chambers. The Energy Union was built on concrete proposals that
required implementation at the national level, and this was a process that could be facilitated by
national Parliaments.
Mr ŠEFČOVIČ welcomed the Paris ratification and agreement, thanks to European efforts in the
fight against climate change, adding that European diplomacy had helped make this possible. He
noted that the fact that reserved countries like China and the US proceeded with ratification much
earlier than expected was also very positive.
Mr ŠEFČOVIČ referred to the proposal to lower greenhouse gas emission from non-ETS sectors
like transport, and talked about how to reduce low-carbon mobility in Member States, by working
closely with cities and mayors who had proved themselves useful allies in this regard. This had
resulted in a global covenant of mayors: more than 7,000 high representatives of cities working
together.
The Vice-President stressed the importance of energy security, which was why it was the first pillar
of the Energy Union. In this regard, he referred to legislation on security of supply; a new strategy
for Liquid Gas; efforts towards efficient heating and cooling systems; as well as more transparency
in commercial contracts and inter-governmental agreements.
Solidarity was another important aspect, and Mr ŠEFČOVIČ appealed for stronger regional
cooperation in times of emergency, with contingency plans in place, and welcomed efforts to come
up with ways how the regions could help each other in such situations. This solidarity had to be
manifest to ensure a smooth energy transition so that people struck by energy poverty were not
forgotten.
14
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
Mr ŠEFČOVIČ briefly described some of the elements of this “jumbo package”, starting firstly
with energy efficiency and new standards by which to measure the energy performance of buildings
whereby smart buildings were to be part of this new economic structure and transformation in
Europe; smart financing for smart buildings, linked to the European Fund for Strategic Investment,
and offered to all those who would like to restructure buildings. Secondly, he mentioned eco-design
and eco-buildings, which were bound to lead to huge savings. Thirdly, he referred to the package
concerning new electricity market design, with renewables better integrated into the system and a
regional and close-border approach adopted, linked with a new directive on renewables and a new
role of Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). This, he said, was the agenda for
the end of the year.
On the other hand, 2017 marked the year of implementation: the year in which each government
was to work on energy governance and climate plans, and discussions on how they wanted to fit in
this energy union and respect the commitments signed up for in Paris. Mr ŠEFČOVIČ summarised
the upcoming year as basically the coordination of 27 energy plans.
The moderator, Ms Zuzana GABRI�½OVÁ, Editor-in-chief of Euractiv.sk, welcomed the panellists,
and invited them to talk about the most pressing issues in the area of energy and climate in their
respective countries.
The first panellist, Ms Danielle AUROI, French
Assemblée nationale,
referred to the COP 22
conference taking place in Marrakech to which she was attending. She said that, while the EU
shaped the decision making in Paris, she wanted to see more solidarity and integration at the EU
level. Ms AUROI stressed that the EU was the leader in the global fight against climate change, and
lauded the added value of joint European steps and the several priorities of the EU energy policy. It
was important to ensure an energy system which was more efficient and yet resulted in less
pollution; reduce the carbon footprint; integrate the energy market; and to have a transition to
alternative and renewable energy sources in a more efficient manner. To this end, Ms AUROI stated
that the EU had to increase its investing. Turning her attention to Parliaments of third countries, Ms
AUROI was pleased that the Indian delegation had been convinced to sign COP 21.
The following panellist, Mr PALLING said that the EU had to become connected, open and smart
for a competitive Europe. This would bring new growth and opportunity to business with a well-
functioning energy union. The latter could not do without free market and quality connections,
however. Mr PALLING admitted that efficient energy security and use of resources were not easy
to achieve, but were the key to success, as were digital solutions and the greater involvement of
consumers.
Mr PALLING continued by recalling that Tallin was taking over the Presidency from Malta, and it
intended to put focus on energy issues, including an integrated energy market, investments and
energy interconnections to eliminate energy islands and ensure supply. Mr PALLING called for a
wider choice for consumers by opening energy markets, as was the case in Estonia, which also
provided cheaper energy solutions when compared to other Member States. Referring to efforts
toward establishing an interconnected market in Estonia, Mr PALLING said that Estonia had
achieved a lot for the benefit of the country, but also for the region and the EU as a whole, citing
cables between Finland and Estonia, the Baltic connector, and a similar connection with Latvia as
examples. Mr PALLING stressed that an interconnected energy market should be on everybody’s
agenda.
15
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
The final panellist, Mr António COSTA SILVA, Portuguese
Assembleia da República,
said that
talking about energy meant talking also about social justice and peace in Europe, and that energy
was a crucial precondition for peace, the importance of which was often forgotten. Mr COSTA
SILVA said the energy union was important for security and economic growth, and helped in the
fight against climate change, providing important coordination and balancing out the energy market,
and making Europe stronger and more independent, while also increasing its influence in the fight
against fossil fuels and promoting renewable energy sources.
Mr COSTA SILVA said Portugal had achieved a lot in this regard, increasing the share of
renewables to 20% in 2015. Nevertheless, the overall objective was much higher and more
ambitious. The country was now trying to make use of solar and hydro energy. Portugal also
increased its export of energy from 3 to 7%, mainly to Spain. Mr COSTA SILVA said it was
important to improve connections with Spain and improve the energy grid, noting however that the
surplus energy not exported to other markets meant high storage costs for the country. Mr COSTA
SILVA said that interconnectivity was highly important since only 10% of produced energy was
being transported over the border, and in the case of Portugal this could only be done with Spain. It
was crucial to become less dependent on Russia, mainly in terms of natural gas, but there were no
specific deadlines for improving the interconnections on the peninsula.
In the ensuing debate, 24 speakers took the floor.
The importance of energy interconnectivity was stressed throughout the debate by a number of
Members, while energy security, and the need to ensure a guaranteed, cheap, safe and secure energy
supply, was also a recurrent issue mentioned by several speakers, including Mr Bojan KEKEC,
Slovenian
Državni svet;
Mr Rainer ROBRA, German
Bundesrat;
Mr Christian PETRY, German
Bundestag;
and Ms BIRCHALL. The latter also called for a decrease in dependence on unstable and
unpredictable third countries.
In this regard, Mr Angelos VOTSIS, Cypriot
Vouli ton Antiprosopon,
suggested tapping the
potential of natural gas resources inside the EU, and both he and Mr CHARAKOPOULOS
welcomed the possibility of Cyprus becoming a regional energy hub. Mr VOTSIS additionally
referred to violations of Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone and to harassment of hydrocarbon
prospection by Turkey and invited the EU to intervene in order to prevent a violation of
international law and unnecessary tension in the Eastern Mediterranean region.
Gazprom was also brought up during the debate by Mr MADISON, who called for sanctions against
the company, and Mr Michal STASINSKI, Polish
Sejm,
who called it a political tool in the hands of
Russian leadership to leverage Russian policy interests in the EU.
Mr STASINSKI, along with Mr Domagoj Ivan MILOŠEVIĆ, Croatian
Hrvatski sabor,
highlighted
the importance of investing in and taking full advantage of energy storage.
A number of Members talked about efforts towards a cleaner economy. Ms KLOC said
decarbonisation should not be left as an ideological project on the margins, and Mr SCHENNACH
said energy efficiency had to be given greater importance, given its immense impact on the
economy, and went on to highlight the importance of e-mobility. The need for renewable sources
was referred to by some speakers, with Mr SCHENNACH and Mr MILOŠEVIĆ identifying solar
energy and hydro energy, respectively. Finally, Ms Asa ROMSON, Swedish
Riksdag,
said Sweden
wanted to see more bio-economy in the energy union, while also noting the importance of smart
grids.
16
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
Mr Piotr APEL, Polish
Sejm,
contributed to this subject from another point of view, urging the EU
and its Member States to sign international agreements which proposed greener measures on the
global scale, and thus ensure that trading partners adopt similar measures.
A couple of speakers, including Mr Zoltán TESSELY, Hungarian
Országgyűlés,
referred to the
special needs and characteristics of different countries, in particular those on the periphery. In this
vein, Mr Arto PIRTTILAHTI, Finnish
Eduskunta,
and Mr Piotr WACH, Polish
Senat,
both asked
for recognition of forestry in counterbalancing emissions. Some Polish Members (Ms KLOC, Mr
WACH, and Mr APEL) stressed Poland’s dependence on the coal industry and the jobs that it
created.
Social issues and questions of fairness and energy justice were also touched upon by some
Members, with Mr KOURAKIS, and Mr António CARDOSO, Portuguese
Assembleia da
República,
both calling for solidarity, whereas Mr Franc TRČEK, Slovenian
Državni zbor,
explicitly referred to the fight against energy poverty and price dumping.
With regard to countries outside the Union, Ms TAŞKESENLİOĞLU said Turkey had great
potential thanks to its geopolitical advantage and played an important role in the transportation of
energy throughout the region, whereas Mr Dominik TARCZYNSKI, Polish
Sejm,
accused
Germany, which, he stressed, bought energy from Russia, of setting inacceptable policies in the
field of energy.
In her replies, Ms AUROI referred to energy injustices and said that subsidies to assist in building
insulation and transition were in place in France and were important to ease the transition. She
asked the Commission whether any measures against price dumping were in place.
Ms AUROI said that certain Member States wanted to have direct negotiations with Russia and
wanted even more Russian natural gas to come to Europe: a more integrated market would enable
the EU to answer the demand in a joint and united voice.
Ms AUROI asked the Commission how much money was needed to invest in energy union, and
how much would be saved thanks to smart buildings.
As for renewable energy sources, she was concerned because some sources were preferred over
others, and sometimes this applied pressure on certain sources. Ms AUROI also referred to the
need to cooperate on carbon economy in order to come up with an attractive price of carbon in order
to support fulfilment of targets.
Mr COSTA SILVA said it was clear that Europe spoke with a multitude of voices and this was a
good sign as it showed a diversification of points of views. He added that one could not adapt
everything to everyone though, and common ground had to be found. In this regard, it was
necessary to adopt a long list of measures guaranteeing energy efficiency throughout the EU.
Mr COSTA SILVA warned against a one-size-fits-all solution, proposing instead measures which
fit different regions with their specific characteristics.
Mr PALLING said that investments in interconnections should be taken care of by the EU and then
this would invite private investment. He stressed that when all the states were connected together,
the gas and energy market would become wider, and this meant economies of scale and cheaper
17
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
prices. He expressed disbelief at how the EU was not putting a penalty on Gazprom after certain
things (like closing supply) and going against rules and procedures. He claimed that Russia and
Gazprom were using energy as a weapon and this had to be punished. He described Nord Stream 2
as a project to cut out some countries, and insisted that the EU should not let that happen.
Mr ŠEFČOVIČ said France was serving as a good example and inspiration when it came to
transition to renewable sources. The EU needed to have appropriate interconnections - an internal
energy market to allow energy to flow freely through Member States, and thanked Estonia and
Baltic States for their cooperative efforts. He said it was important that we were creating a market
between Nordic and Baltic countries which could serve as a model for the rest of Europe.
Referring to Mr COSTA SILVA’s comments on energy poverty, Mr ŠEFČOVIČ admitted it was of
the utmost importance to find a proper balance through energy efficiency and energy design
whereby consumer could be empowered, but added that the onus mostly lay on the national
authorities. These also had to prepare a new generation with new skills with which to enter this new
energy market.
Mr ŠEFČOVIČ also referred to the Commission’s efforts to ensure that Caspian gas was in Europe
before 2020, and promised more innovative carbon capture storage methods. As for energy
efficiency, he claimed that a 1% gain in energy efficiency translated into 2.6% less imported gas.
Turning his attention to Chinese competition and Chinese dumping, Mr ŠEFČOVIČ stressed that
Europe needed to be better equipped for this new world: trade defence instruments allowing the EU
to act much faster had been on the table for three years, and this process had to be sped up.
On Gazprom, Mr ŠEFČOVIČ said the EU was investigating it for some time, but admitted that it
was not an easy matter. Nevertheless, he identified three areas under investigation.
Mr ŠEFČOVIČ agreed that Nord Stream 2 was an extremely polarising project, but it was difficult
to comment without all parameters and details available. He stressed that preserving the transit
route through Ukraine remained a top priority. Nonetheless, he stressed that such project, once
proposed, would have to respect all EU laws and core principles.
Mr ŠEFČOVIČ hailed the newly found wealth in gas reserves in Cyprus, which could serve as a
fuel to a smoother energy transition. Referring to Finland, Sweden, he said bio-mass was important
for Nordic countries, and looked forward for ways to use bio-mass in a sustainable way, in
particular by working with the UN for a more scientifically based assessment, especially when it
came to how to calculate the impact of forests in fighting climate change.
Mr ŠEFČOVIČ was not as pleased with the energy cost being 3-4 times higher than the US, and
blamed the system of low wholesale prices but high consumer prices, adding that part of the debate
on energy transition should be about how to tackle this problem.
Mr ŠEFČOVIČ touched briefly on the reform of the ETS system and the preparation of the car
industry for E-mobility amidst strong calls coming from the Netherlands and Germany in favour of
electric modes of transportation.
Turning to the US elections, Mr ŠEFČOVIČ said it was important to find a solution to climate
change on a global level, and was optimistic because even big businesses supported this fight.
18
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
Concluding, Mr ŠEFČOVIČ said the energy union was really about the new economy and how to
create the new backbone for the economy of the 21st century. He was looking forward to visit
national Parliaments and go through the energy policy with Members of Parliament.
7. Session V: ‘Securing the external borders of the EU in the context of irregular migration’
Keynote speakers: Mr Robert KALIŇÁK, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior of the
Slovak Republic
Panellists: Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs, Hungarian
Országgyűlés,
Mr Lucio ROMANO, Vice-Chair of the Committee on European Affairs Policies,
Italian
Senato della Repubblica
Moderator: Ms Katarína CSÉFALVAYOVÁ, Vice-Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the
Slovak
Národná rada
Opening his speech, Mr Robert KALIŇÁK, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior of the
Slovak Republic, made reference to the period when Slovakia together with other countries were
joining the Schengen zone. For the successful external border protection, according to the Deputy
Prime Minister, it was important to defend internal security within the Schengen area and to
actively prevent illegal migration. To achieve this, Mr KALIŇÁK identified two key elements. The
first one concerned technical considerations and human resources. The second one had to do with
high quality readmission agreements and here Mr KALIŇÁK stressed the need to cultivate sound
relations with third countries, referring to the re-admission agreement with Ukraine as an example
of such agreement, which worked perfectly.
A successful return policy could work as the main tool when fighting illegal migration and serve as
a demotivation for illegal migrants, he continued, explaining that those who were not subject to
persecution would think twice before travelling if they knew that a good return policy was in place
and that they would be returned back to their country.
Mr KALIŇÁK also emphasised the need to have a top quality asylum policy, and recalled cases
when a change in political stance in a third country led to automatic asylum status to certain people
in that country, which then caused additional linked problems as they later came in great numbers to
the European countries.
Mr KALIŇÁK questioned the current practice, which seemed to favour those who could afford the
trip to Europe leaving the most vulnerable behind. Furthermore, this did not augur well for the
recovery of countries like Syria in the longer term. Finally, he also stressed the need to distinguish
between migrants and pinpoint real asylum seekers.
Finally, with regard to the integration process and past mistakes made, Mr KALIŇÁK said that this
was far from perfect in some European cities, which were indiscriminately facing large number of
migrants.
The moderator, Ms Katarína CSÉFALVAYOVÁ, introduced the panels and asked for their
comments on the keynote speech delivered by Mr KALIŇÁK, in particular referring to European
cooperation in this field, and future steps to be taken.
Mr Richárd HÖRCSIK, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs of the Hungarian
Országgyűlés,
said that Brexit and migration were the two main challenges currently faced by the
EU. These would challenge the stability of the whole union if no common priorities were set, as
19
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
countries still had to cope with the unprecedented pressure. Mr HÖRCSIK said that Member States
with large sections of land or sea borders should be given special status and have their specific
needs considered. He welcomed the protection of the Bulgarian border with Turkey, but noted that a
common framework about interoperation of migration should had been created. Furthermore, it
should had been clarified whether the Union was dealing with a temporary phenomenon or a
permanent one which would last for decades. Mr HÖRCSIK further noted that Hungary had spent
60 million euros in the last one and a half year on border control. He stated that the protection of the
common external border should be regarded as a matter of common concern, and that Hungary
considered the protection of its external border as a symbol of and exercise in solidarity.
The following panellist, Mr Lucio ROMANO, Vice-Chair of the Committee on European Affairs
Policies of the Italian
Senato,
said the Union and its Member States needed to focus not only on
external borders as this was insufficient, but also on international diplomatic access to countries of
origin on the level of development and financial aid in order to secure economic and social comfort
for the people and encourage them to stay in their own countries. According to Mr ROMANO, it
was about limiting the inflow in order to guarantee democratic principles being safeguarded in the
countries of origin. He invited colleagues to visit the refugee camps and witness first-hand the
desperate situation, while also stressing that the issue of unaccompanied minors represented a
serious challenge in its own right.
Mr ROMANO asserted that the UN needed to be more involved; and that it must work closely with
the interim government in Libya, and ensure more discussions with international partners. He added
that migration flows must be controlled at the start of the journey, and that solidarity from other EU
countries was needed. Mr ROMANO stressed the fact that migrants invested not just money, but
also hope in EU, and it was therefore imperative to interact and put in place a major level of
integration. Finally, Mr ROMANO pointed out that migration was also a huge burden on the budget
of the hosting country.
The ensuing debate saw 32 speakers taking the floor.
A predominant and recurring point continuously emphasised by most speakers was the management
of borders, and in this regard a number of suggestions were proposed. Ms MÉLOT and Mr
Tomislav SAUCHA, Croatian
Hrvatski sabor,
highlighted the importance of securing the external
borders of the Union. Ms MÉLOT also suggested increasing the cooperation of enforcement
agencies, and, on a similar note, Mr Veli YÜKSEL, Belgian
Chambre des représentants,
emphasised the importance of exchange of information, as well as the use of EUROPOL.
While Ms Marietta KARAMANLI, French
Assemblée nationale,
also stressed the significance of
proper border management, she also underlined the importance of having an EU-Turkish
agreement, whereas Mr Maximos CHARAKOUPOULOS, Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon,
said it was
critical to put pressure on Turkey so that it respect the agreement with the EU. On the other hand,
Ms TAŞKESENLİOĞLU pointed to the unfair share of the burden carried by Turkey, while also
alluding to deepened cooperation with the EU and commitments to control the migration flow.
Solidarity and enhanced cooperation was another point that featured heavily during the discussion,
with Ms KARAMANLI, Mr SAUCHA and Ms KAVVADIA explicitly expressing their support for
solidarity. Mr SAUCHA also appealed for assistance to the countries of origin, in order to tackle the
problem at its source. Ms MÉLOT made her case for increased cooperation and joint effort between
Member States in tackling the crisis, while also pointing out that the European Parliament should be
engaged in the ongoing discussions.
20
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
Mr SAUCHA and Ms Dušica STOJKOVIĆ, Serbian
Narodna Skupština,
both emphasised the
importance of keeping the Balkan route closed. Mr SAUCHA, together with Ms KAVVADIA, Mr
CHARAKOUPOULOS and Mr Anastasios KOURAKIS, Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon,
also noted the
importance of the coastal guard in protecting external maritime borders. The latter also pointed out
the restrictions faced by coastal Member States on maritime borders and law, as well as the
humanitarian dimension of the crisis.
Other issues brought up during the debate concerned the costs incurred by Member States afflicted
by the migratory pressures and the sales of firearms which exacerbated these pressures (Ms
KARAMANLI), the radicalisation in Member States and possible return of radicalised citizens from
Syria (Mr YÜKSEL) and the importance of distinguishing between different types of migrants, and
especially between refugees fleeing war and persecution and economic migrants (Mr MADISON).
Ms Francisca PERREIRA, Portuguese
Assembleia da República,
insisted on the EU dimension of
any action aimed at protecting external borders. She stressed that the EU had to give power to the
agency and insure the continuity of Schengen. Mr Angelos VOTSIS, Cyprus
Vouli ton
antiprosopon,
underlined that one had to disconnect terrorism from migration, because the two
phenomena were not necessarily linked. He insisted that more integrated efforts were needed to
fight irregular immigration and trafficking, as well as the roots of the phenomena. Saluting the
decision on the coast guards, he invoked an immediate implementation of the joint EU-Turkey
statement. Mr BANA declared that the EU was under unprecedented migratory pressure and that
the EU had to prevent terrorists from abusing the right to protection for asylum seekers. He
concluded claiming that Hungary had taken the right decision by building a wall to protect the EU
external borders. Mr Svetlen TANCHEV, Bulgarian
Narodno sabranie,
underlined the high
pressure that Bulgaria was facing on the EU external borders. He stressed that, though not a
member of the Schengen area, Bulgaria had acted as a
de facto
member. He added that his country
was actively supporting the entry-exit system.
In his reply, Mr HÖRCSIK underlined that one of the most crucial problems for the EU was
protecting the external borders, which implied the question of solidarity and security. According to
him, the solution was to be found in a joint effort implicating origin, transit and destination
countries. He also appealed for a stronger effort of the EU as far as the external dimensions of the
problem. He affirmed that the scarce implementation of Council decisions concerning relocation
and resettlement for the benefit of Italy in Greece was a sign of the inadequate nature of the
measures.
Mr ROMANO underlined the cultural diversities, disputes and divides that the issue of migration
had demonstrated. Nevertheless, he said he was sure that it was possible to find a joint approach. To
that end, he insisted that it was necessary to change the methodology in facing the problem. He
stated that barriers and fences would have no effect on the phenomena we were facing. He insisted
on the need to developing partnership with countries like Senegal or Nigeria as the only way to
solve the problem, which was a global problem, at the origin.
Mr KALIŇÁK replied to the first interventions by assuring that he understood how crucial it was to
share the burden and expenditures that countries like Italy and Greece were sustaining. He insisted
on the need to help each other in an effective way and stressed that the current system of relocation
had failed. He expressed the opinion that the EU needed to have a frank discussion to find a
functioning model of relocation and it would need to be supported by all Member States. He
regretted that on some serious issues a lot of time had been wasted before coming to action, like it
21
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
had happened with the PNR. On the other hand, he praised the timely initiative of the EP,
Commission and Council on the coast guard. He stressed that serious gaps were still affecting not
only communication among intelligences of the Member States, but also communication between
intelligence and police of the same states. Concerning the origins of the flows of illegal migration,
he condemned the military interventions in the Middle East area. Finally, he stressed the importance
of seeing Schengen as a continuity, a compact where no isolation could be tolerated. He concluded
that the accession of all Member States was a priority for the security of the EU.
In the second round of interventions, Mr Pol van den DRIESSCHE, Belgian
Sénat,
indicated that
the readmission agreements had improved the situation as far as the flows of migrants were
concerned. In spite of that, he advocated the need to strengthen the EU control capacity and the
need to pursue programmes for the integration of refugees. Ms BIRCHALL stressed the importance
of securing the EU external borders and indicated the essential role of FRONTEX. She also
underlined the Romania and Bulgaria’s role.
Mr Detlef SEIF, German
Bundestag,
put the accent on the global dimension of the migration crisis.
He advocated a more efficient use of the EU resources and the need to target countries of origin and
tackle the problem at its roots. He insisted that EU funds had to be allocated to support the decisions
taken concerning migrants and refugees. Mr Dominik TARCZYNSKI, Polish
Sejm,
spoke of floods
and avalanches of migrants submerging the EU and the need to stop the crisis. Mr AZMANI
underlined the need to respect one another and to try to understand those countries that had
difficulties in accepting migrants. He stressed that it was necessary to avoid increasing nationalism.
On the other side, he called for understanding and support towards countries that faced the highest
migratory pressures. He indicated that agreements with African countries could be of help. Mr
Reiner ROBRA, German
Bundesrat,
recognised that Germany was fully dependent on the
neighbouring EU countries as far as security of borders was concerned. He invoked higher level of
efficiency in the EU return policy. Mr Francis ZAMMIT DIMECH, Maltese
Kamra-tad-Deputati,
regretted that securing the external borders of the EU was presented as the only aspect of the
migration crisis and pointed to many other aspects of the issue, including relocation. He condemned
not sharing the burden and the responsibilities entailed. He invoked in this respect a policy
reflecting the EU values and an EU without curtains. Ms LOONE denounced the hypocritical
approach to an economic phenomenon like migration and pointed to the fact that the origin of the
crisis was the corporates interests benefitting from low salaries. Mr Christian PETRY, German
Bundestag,
acknowledged the importance of external borders control and called for adequate
funding and personnel. He also accused the countries opposing relocation and resettlement of not
making enough efforts to retain the migrants. Mr HÜBNER spoke of a civilisation conflict with
some 45 millions of people from Africa trying to come to the EU. He accused the EU of inviting
them to come by financing rescue operations and resettlements. Mr BENEŠÍK stressed the need to
fight traffickers that made huge amount of money with the migrants. He called on all to do their
utmost to keep Schengen alive and unified. Mr PETREA stressed the need to secure the best
cooperation in data and information sharing among the EU. He renewed the request for immediate
access of Romania to Schengen and called for a stronger support to FRONTEX. Mr GRANT
regretted that the Member States had left two (Italy and Greece) to face alone the problem. He also
insisted on the efforts made by Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. Mr PRETZELL welcomed the change
of attitude of the German Government as far as the migration crisis was concerned. Mr Atis
LEJIŅŠ, Latvian
Saeima,
regretted that the newly created agency had not been established earlier to
prevent the current crisis for fear of losing sovereignty. He stressed the need of readmission
agreements with countries not only from Africa.
22
EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 194: Referat fra Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde i Bratislava 13-15/11-16
In his final reply, Mr HÖRCSIK referred to an existing clear strong will to find a common solution
for the current crisis. He invited the Commission to take further steps for a secure EU and invited
everyone to look for solutions in the countries of origins and in the countries at war.
Mr ROMANO recognised that the positions were different, but welcomed that the EU Member
States were debating and at the EU level were building bridges, which was the duty of leaders and
of all humanity. He stressed that the solution depended on a bigger show of goodwill from all and a
fair share also of the negative consequences of being members of the EU.
Mr KALIŇÁK saluted the importance of the debate. He stressed the need to fight against abuse of
the right to access and protection as the crucial way to an effective migration policy. For him, only a
successful return policy could ensure that the EU had a functioning asylum policy for those who
were really persecuted. He also listed the prevention of criminality, responsibility in the external
action and readmission policy, like the one that Spain had enacted, as priorities for the EU in the
field.
8. Adoption of the Contribution of the LVI COSAC
Mr BLAHA mentioned that the first draft of the LVI Contribution, which had been sent to the
delegations before the meeting, and the amendments submitted to the text were discussed by the
Troika. The Presidency, following the Troika meeting, submitted a revised compromise text
allowing the possibility to table new amendments. A modified text was presented and approved by
the Chairpersons the day before.
The text of the Contribution of the LVI COSAC was adopted, as amended by the Chairpersons.
Mr BLAHA informed the delegations that two declarations had been submitted following approval
at the Chairpersons meeting. First, a declaration on recent earthquakes in Italy submitted by the
Italian
Senato della Repubblica,
which was open for signature by individual Members at the foyer
of the premises. Second, a declaration on the recent situation in Turkey, jointly submitted by the
German
Bundestag,
French
Assemblée nationale,
French
Sénat,
UK
House of Lords,
Cyprus
Vouli
ton Antiprosopon,
Finnish
Eduskunta,
Swedish
Riksdag,
Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon,
Danish
Folketing,
Spanish
Cortes Generales,
Luxembourg
Chambres des représentants
and Italian
Senato della
Repubblica;
in relation to this, the delegations were asked to submit their intention to join the
declaration by email to the Presidency by the end of the day. The Chair stressed that only this
electronic form would be taken into consideration and therefore the list in the foyer for this
declaration should be disregarded.
Mr BLAHA gave the floor to Mr BUSUTTIL, who informed the delegations about the upcoming
COSAC Chairpersons’ meeting in Malta on 22-23 January 2017 and the LVII COSAC on 28-30
May 2017. A short video about the Maltese Presidency was screened.
Finally, Mr BLAHA thanked all the delegations for participating in the meeting, as well as the
meeting’s organisers.
23