15.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/183

Rapporteur:

Luca JAHIER

Co-rapporteur:

José Isaías RODRÍGUEZ GARCÍA-CARO

1.1.

This opinion is drafted at the request of the European Parliament, within the context of the two reports of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, namely: Improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Liston Treaty (rapporteurs Ms BRESSO and Mr BROK) and Possible evolutions and adjustments of the current institutional set-up of the European Union (rapporteur Mr VERHOFSTADT).

1.2.

The EESC welcomes the initiative of the European Parliament. It is expected that it will constitute a significant contribution towards relaunching the debate on the future of the European Union. The EESC has already adopted several opinions on the subject and is committed to contribute further to the work of the European Parliament.

1.3.

The EESC is the institutional representative of organised civil society (1) at the European level and its members are ‘completely independent in the performance of their duties, in the Union’s general interest’  (2). As a consultative body of the European institutions, the EESC has assured, since its creation, effective, wide and consistent participation of organised representative European civil society in EU policy-shaping and decision-making. Therefore, it contributes to ensuring that decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen (3), thus contributing to the implementation of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which govern the use of Union competences (4).

2.1.

Almost six years since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has raised the question as to whether the European Union can overcome its challenges by fully exploiting the existing provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, and/or whether it would be necessary to review certain policy areas and the current institutional set-up of the European Union.

2.2.

The crisis which was triggered in 2008 revealed serious failings in the architecture of the euro area and in the institutional set-up of the EU, which spurred on rapid steps to adapt and innovate. These changes have demonstrated the resilience of the European institutions and their capacity to overcome the threat of a general break-up of the euro area. Moreover, the result has been the introduction of mechanisms of solidarity and assistance which have no precedent in the history of the EU. Nevertheless, the EU needs to regain a sufficient level of growth to improve the environment for enterprises and maintain jobs, to reduce unemployment, social inequalities and the asymmetric development between the Member States and regions. To date, the growth supporting measures have been insufficient to attain these objectives.

2.3.

However, the economic problems have led to a concentration of urgent economic and fiscal initiatives designed to tackle the deep financial and economic crisis. These measures have generated serious concerns about democratic accountability and their social impact, which have not been sufficiently taken into consideration. Crucially, the response to the crisis has highlighted concerns over the transparency, accountability and sustainability of European decision making, due, inter alia, to the repeated recourse to inter-governmentalism.

2.4.

During the crisis, a large majority of EU Member States resorted to the signature of intergovernmental treaties, which are legal instruments concluded outside the procedures of EU Treaties. These are the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG) and the Treaty on the European Stability Mechanism (TESM). These Treaties have been enacted without significant transparent or public debate. Such an intergovernmental approach, represented by the European Council, can be explained by the financial dimension of the crisis and the urgency to quickly put in place significant instruments to overcome this crisis. This raises the issue of potential conflicts between the intergovernmental nature of these Treaties and the EU’s own ‘rule of law’.

2.5.

Today, the EU is forced to overcome increasing fragmentation, a very divisive economic, social and political crisis, coupled with increasing civic unrest, all of which are creating growing divergences. Today’s Europe is one of revived prejudices, national stereotypes and increasing divisions between people and countries, with the rise of populist and anti-European movements. Thus, there is an urgent need to promote what unites the people of Europe as opposed to what divides them. This will be a long process and should begin immediately.

2.6.

It is also a Europe where citizens have limited trust in the European institutions and where mainstream democratic politics are under severe scrutiny. This is principally reflected at the national level, as we have seen from recent election results. However, the impact is felt very much at the European level. In the 2014 elections to the European Parliament, approximately one-quarter of all seats were won by candidates of parties that were sceptical either of the European project, or of some EU policies. For despite national responsibilities for the crisis, citizens feel either that ‘Europe’ is responsible for the socio-economic problems or that EU institutions are not doing enough to improve their daily lives. Nevertheless, there is still a significant majority of voters who favour further European integration.

2.7.

The risk of a British withdrawal from the EU through a referendum in or before 2017 and the continued instability in Greece further compound the fact that the EU is at a political crossroads. Indeed, one could argue that Europe has lost its sense of direction in relation to the deepening of European integration and that there are considerable question marks with regard to its current and future evolution and identity. Whereas in the past European integration was driven by a vision (peace, reconciliation, prosperity, etc.), today we have an EU which is ‘reacting’ to threats and challenges, instead of driving the process.

2.8.

In contrast, as was stated by Mr Van Rompuy, former President of the European Council, today the EU needs to strive for the right balance between an ‘enabling’ Europe capable of opening new opportunities and a ‘caring’ Europe able to support its citizens (5). It is precisely this synergy, reinforced by a new participatory dimension, that will encourage European citizens and by consequence politicians, to regain confidence in the European project, in the spirit of the Preamble of the Treaty on European Union.

2.9.

To the internal difficulties facing the EU must be added an increasing number of crucial external challenges. These include mounting fears and insecurities relating to terrorism, migratory pressures, energy security and territorial cohesion, in addition to a growing instability along the EU’s eastern and southern borders.

2.10.

Within this deeply challenging context, it is now urgent to reopen the debate on the efficient functioning of the EU and on the role of the Treaties within this process. It is an opportune moment to examine how to deliver better results for the citizens of Europe and to adapt and reinforce the current institutional set-up.

2.11.

Equally important is the necessity to rebuild trust by concentrating more on explaining to citizens the advantages of the EU and, also, by listening to them and to representative civil society organisations. The prevailing perception is that the EU has not been successful neither in formulating nor in implementing sustainable, inclusive and balanced strategies focussed on investment and growth, and the reduction of inequalities. Moreover, the EU has failed to deliver concrete results to its citizens, for which Member States carry part of the responsibility. The end result is an increasing lack of confidence by citizens in the EU, a sense of inappropriate intrusions by EU institutions in local affairs and a widening gap of misinformation. Rebuilding trust and confidence in the EU is crucial. The EU is at a turning point and acceptance by its citizens will be crucial to moving forward in this respect.

3.1.

Without doubt, the existing European Treaties provide unexploited opportunities which could be employed to improve policies and thus to strengthen the EU internally and externally. Whether exploring deeper policy action or improving implementation, there is a wide scope of policy areas and technical instruments which could be tapped into. This should be the current priority of the European Union and its institutional architecture.

3.2.

Despite the necessity to review certain elements of the existing institutional framework of the European Union through specific Treaty changes, it must be considered that the conditions for doing so are not met today. Thus, the EESC will only address the issue of changes and adjustments to the Treaties as and when appropriate.

3.3.

Central to regaining the confidence of citizens in the EU is the necessity to ensure coherence and consistency between all EU policies and activities, as stipulated in Article 7 TFEU, thus improving the implementation of the existing treaties. This would imply balancing territorial cohesion with the economic and social dimensions of the Treaties. In particular, it would necessitate the full application of Article 3 TEU, which states, inter alia, that the EU must be based on a ‘… highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment … (which) shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’.

3.4.

Further examples of under-used existing provisions within the Treaties include the five horizontal clauses of the TFEU, which relate in particular to promoting equality between men and women (Article 8), ensuring a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion (Article 9), combatting discrimination (Article 10), environmental protection (Article 11) and consumer protection (Article 12). In the future these clauses should be used to promote greater inter-connectivity between European policies and more accountability with regard to EU citizens.

3.5.

Moreover, there is a large range of policy areas which have been insufficiently used. The main instrument for integration of the 28 Member States has been the internal market  (6). It should be complemented by further integration, to drive growth, competitiveness, employment and benefits for all EU citizens and regions. In order to achieve this, substantial EU initiatives are needed primarily in product markets, energy, transport, services, labour markets, public procurement, intellectual property and the digital economy. Moreover, national reforms should be more transparent in the tax area, address unfair tax competition and be complemented by a greater breadth of EU policy action (7).

3.6.

Two main sectoral clusters to be subject to reinforced European policies should be the Energy Union and the Digital Single Market. The latter is the subject of a specific EESC opinion in preparation and hence will not be dealt with in detail in this opinion.

3.7.

In order to overcome the external threat of energy insecurity, the EU could apply the existing provisions of Article 194 of the TFEU and move towards an Energy Union. The EESC has consistently advocated ‘More Europe’ in energy policy and has called for solidarity to become the driving force for developing a European energy policy. Article 194 would enable the establishment of an effective and transparent governance system for the Energy Union, which would make EU energy policy more efficient, reduce costs, bring value to citizens and raise the EU’s profile vis-à-vis its international partners. Promoting renewable energy and supporting businesses in their energy transition are integral to this process.

3.8.

In addition, real progress to drive inclusive growth, competitiveness, employment and benefits for all EU citizens and regions could be achieved via the next mid-term review of the Europe 2020 Strategy. This would require reforms to be focussed on EU investments, in order to enhance competiveness in innovation, employment, resource efficiency, sustainable re-industrialisation, more and decent jobs, equality in the labour market, social and regional cohesion, inclusion and a well-functioning internal market. The EESC underlines that the EU does not need a completely new strategy, but a much more effective Europe 2020 (8), including an increasingly efficient, balanced and democratic design of the European Semester.

3.9.

A contribution to achieving economies of scale and realising the political objectives of the EU could be reached through the reform of the EU own-resources system, simplifying the current system of contributions and payments for Member States, presenting a new own resource system and reforming the corrections system. A change to own resources would mean that the original Article 201 of the Treaty of Rome, now Article 311 of the TFEU, would be properly and fully implemented for the first time. For the EESC, it is crucial that the own resources system meets a number of criteria. These should include fairness, efficiency, stability, transparency, simplicity, accountability, a budgetary discipline, a focus on European added value, subsidiarity and fiscal sovereignty. In order to achieve these objectives, it is proposed to seize the opportunity of the next mid-term revision of the EU budget, in order to adopt the relevant proposals of the Monti High Level Group. The principal objective must be to reinforce the autonomy of the EU budget, to enable it to have leverage and greater complementarity to national budgets. This will directly contribute to achieving economies of scale and realising the political objectives of the EU (9).

3.10.

The EU also needs reforms to reinforce the sense of common citizenship at the European level. But the sense of common European citizenship will not be created without citizens’ involvement in decision-making at the European level. This implies creating the sense of participation in the joint process for the common cause in all Member States across Europe. One possibility to achieve this would be to give citizens the opportunity to elect Members of the European Parliament from transnational lists, i.e. from several Member States but from European parties, instead of voting for national parties only. However, this may require Treaty change by amending Article 223 TFEU.

3.11.

Within this context, the EESC has highlighted the necessity to implement effectively the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, by means of new, targeted initiatives (10). The Committee stresses the need to ensure equality for all, with specific focus on vulnerable groups. It underlines that, at the EU level, the Charter’s obligations apply to all institutions, agencies and bodies. The EESC urges Member States to build a protection- and promotion-oriented fundamental rights culture at all government levels and across all policy and legislative areas. In addition, it should examine and identify the specific impact on fundamental rights during the transposition process. The EESC strongly encourages the Commission to act effectively in its role as guardian of the Treaties and to use the infringement procedure without taking political considerations into account. In addition, the EESC has called on all EU institutions, agencies, bodies and Member States involved in enacting fundamental rights to promote them with civil society participation. Any regulation related to economic governance and the functioning of the internal market must take into account the provisions of the EU Charter, via a specific assessment (11).

3.12.

Ultimately, over the last 10 years, the EU of 28 Member States has faced key challenges and socially divisive issues, which no individual Member State can face effectively alone. It is only through coordinated policies and common action at the European level that positive results can be attained. This is particularly the case in the areas of migration and asylum policies, and the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). In both of these policy areas, the existing EU Treaties provide a large spectre for manoeuvre and many provisions have not been exploited due to the absence of a common and converging political will (12). To this end, Articles 21 to 46 of the TEU and Articles 76 to 81 of the TFEU should be exploited further.

3.13.

In order to move forward there has to be a combination of ambition, pragmatism and innovation. The EESC is of the opinion that there is today an opportunity to leverage the EU’s challenges and to work towards a new phase in the EU’s development. It is an opportunity to devise a new pact, between Member States and between the EU and its citizens, for a Europe which will reinforce cooperation, competitiveness and growth, integration and solidarity.

3.14.

Without doubt, an under-used tool is ‘Enhanced cooperation’ (defined in Article 20 TEU). This procedure was used for the first time in the area of divorce and legal separation and subsequently for the creation of unitary patent protection in the EU, as well as the proposed introduction of a financial transaction tax. Secondly, the ‘Passerelle’ (bridges) clause (i.e. Article 48(7) TEU), may be used. However, such revisions would require unanimity among the governments of Member States in the European Council or Council, which may be difficult to implement. Both these tools could, in principle, simplify and speed up European decision-making.

3.15.

Hence, it is of foremost importance to build on the conclusions of the European Council, which at its meeting on 26 and 27 June 2014 agreed that: ‘… the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not wish to deepen any further’  (13). This statement provides the basis for a differentiated European Union where all 28 Member States participate, if necessary to varying extents, thus facilitating reinforced cooperation in strategic fields, but which remains open to all Member States to participate fully.

3.16.

In addition, the EESC believes that macro-regional strategies have an increasing role to play in the future of the EU. Strengthening and extending them could help develop a European intermediary level able to bring EU convergence and to achieve the systematic involvement of organised civil society, including the economic and social partners.

4.1.

Improving the failing architecture of EMU and strengthening economic governance have been at the heart of the EU’s crisis strategy over the last few years. Urgency measures to keep EMU afloat have led to a number of developments, but these have resulted from an intergovernmental process of decision-making. It is now important to ensure that these intergovernmental solutions do not become a permanent additional legal framework to the EU Treaties.

4.2.

Within this context, it is imperative to move rapidly from the current system which is based on rules to ensure budgetary discipline, to a process of greater convergence between the countries of the euro area.

4.3.

In the first instance, given that the euro is the currency of the EU, Member States which are members of the euro area need to accelerate and to deepen integration via the completion of EMU, a process which must stay open to all EU Member States. This could be achieved by robust governance and the strengthening of the institutional framework of the euro area, to be based on:

4.4.

Moreover, steps should be taken towards introducing a budget for the euro area, which would contribute towards absorbing shocks that may occur in the future, as long as this potential fiscal capacity is designed as a conditional help for striving for reforms. As stated in the EESC own-initiative opinion on completing EMU (14), such a euro area budget could be financed by a financial transaction tax covering the whole euro area, a carbon tax, a temporary levy or by issuing joint bonds. However, an agreement is still required on any of these options.

4.5.

Progress in European economic governance will be possible by enhancing the social dimension of the EU. This should be based on more balanced application of Article 3 TEU, which stipulates that the EU must find equilibrium between economic efficiency, social and territorial cohesion. Moreover, Articles 151 and 153 of the TFEU aim to support a harmonisation of social systems of Member States, an issue explored by the EESC in 2013 (15).

4.6.

At the same time, we need to strengthen the EU democratic legitimacy in order to reinforce its political framework, and in particular the role of the European Parliament. To that end, concrete steps can be undertaken within the framework of the current Treaty and rules. In the medium to long term, a possible revision of the Treaty should bring the institutional provisions in line with the indispensable requirements of a real political Union. The EESC has already approved a very detailed roadmap for the realisation of the political pillar of EMU, which outlines a wide range of possible actions (16).

4.7.

The EESC takes note of the Five Presidents’ Report of 22 June 2015 to the European Council on Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union and it expects that it will serve as a basis for more decisive action, as indicated above (17).

5.1.

The citizen should be at the centre of the entire debate on the future of the EU. Democracy and accountability are fundamental concepts for European citizenship. In order to implement these principles, a key role has to be played by the European Commission, which is the guardian of the Treaties. The Commission, as the institution which has the monopoly of legislative initiative, also plays a pivotal role of balancing the various forces and interests that make up the EU. This balancing act must be carried out in parallel with the more effective implementation of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, in pursuit of more democratic and participatory governance of the EU.

5.2.

The Lisbon Treaty entails a more significant role for the European Parliament and a proactive attitude by Member States via a strengthened Council. However, in the future, it will be necessary to extend the competences of the European Parliament further, for instance through an increased role in European economic governance and the European Semester, and to put in place a more balanced share of responsibilities and interinstitutional cooperation between the three institutions, which would ensure a more solid EU method. In that context, an issue of particular interest is the extensive use that is made of ‘trilogues’ for the adoption of acts in first and second reading of the ordinary legislative procedure (18). ‘Trilogues’ have to a large extent become the norm, thus going against the democratic principles of transparency and accountability and the necessary balance to be maintained between the three institutions in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure. Therefore, the EESC advocates a return to the spirit, if not the letter, of the ordinary legislative procedure, ‘trilogues’ remaining exceptions.

5.3.

Moreover, the EU method will also be more effectively applied via ‘horizontal’ subsidiarity. This term, as well as that of ‘vertical’ subsidiarity, is not explicitly defined in the Treaties. Nonetheless, it gives recognition to the public role of private players e.g. citizens and representative civil society organisations and to their participation in policy-shaping and decision-making processes, through their specific consultative role, as well as the autonomous legislative role of social partners in the context of European social dialogue.

5.4.

In fact, this concept of ‘horizontal’ subsidiarity, sometimes also called ‘functional’ subsidiarity, is already implicitly recognised by the Treaties under Articles 152, 154 and 155 TFEU on social dialogue and the role of social partners.

5.5.

Article 11 TEU, as well, embodies the principle of participatory democracy as a key complementary component to representative democracy, as expressed in Articles 10 and 12 TEU (19), which is the fundamental basis of democracy. Article 11(1) and (2) TEU (20), as the EESC has stressed on numerous occasions, opens up significant prospects for the development of European democracy by laying the foundations for the long-term establishment of a structured civil dialogue at European level, alongside political dialogue between the EU institutions and the Member States.

5.6.

In addition, this EU Method must be complemented by enhanced ‘vertical’ subsidiarity with a reinforced role for national parliaments in EU policymaking and increased cooperation between the former and the European Parliament.

5.7.

Crucially, all of the above could already be attained within the existing Treaties. In particular, as regards civil participation, democracy and accountability, a great deal could be achieved by further developing European policies, improving processes and implementation. However, as already indicated in two EESC opinions (21)  (22), there has been limited progress in implementing the provisions of Article 11 effectively and in giving full substance to the concept of participatory democracy.

5.8.

This is also true in relation to the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) under Article 11(4). The ECI should be a pivotal instrument for participative democracy and active citizenship, but in its current format it is largely ineffective and its modalities of implementation have to be substantially revised.

5.9.

The concept of ‘horizontal’ subsidiarity must be reinforced and extended to wider policy areas in the future, via structured civil dialogue, for instance in the fields of environment and consumer protection. This would enhance the role of representative civil society organisations in European processes, by enabling them to contribute fully to policy areas that concern them, thus giving substance to the principle of participatory democracy. To achieve this objective and as the EU institutional representative of organised civil society, the EESC has a key role to play in realising the full potential of participatory democracy and in developing and strengthening civil dialogue, in partnership with the EU institutions.

5.10.

As the institutional representative of organised civil society at the European level, its role is threefold: (i) to facilitate and support dialogue between representative civil society organisations and with the European institutions; (ii) to ensure the lasting involvement of organised civil society in the EU political processes; and (iii) to monitor the implementation of Article 11 TEU.

5.11.

Thus and as a consultative body to the EU institutions (23), the EESC has the opportunity to fully act as (i) a catalyst and a coordinator in dialogue between and with civil society organisations; (ii) as a key intermediary between civil society organisations and the EU’s decision-making bodies; and (iii) as an effective bridge between the national and European levels. Should the Treaties come to be revised, the EESC would ask that this role be explicitly acknowledged (24).

5.12.

The relaunch of the ‘Better regulation’ agenda reflects the new Commission’s desire to put a strong emphasis on its assessment work, involving other institutions, national authorities and civil society at large in the process. As an advisory body, EESC involvement in policy evaluation is fundamental because it is based on its legitimate role in the EU institutional set-up: (i) to protect what the EU has achieved to meet the needs of European citizens; and (ii) to warn of impediments to the implementation of EU policies and legislation or possible shortcomings.

5.13.

As part of the role assigned to it under Article 13(4) TEU, both the EESC Protocol on cooperation with the European Commission of 22 February 2012 and the EESC Cooperation Agreement with the European Parliament of 5 February 2014 acknowledge the significant added value the EESC can bring to ‘Better law-making’, by feeding civil society’s input throughout the EU policy cycle (25). Thus, the EESC demands that its institutional role be clearly recognised in any future revision of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation (26).

5.14.

In order to contribute effectively to all this, the EESC itself should fully use its potential and reinforce its role, its operating and working methods, and its operational links with the main European civil society organisations and networks. The EESC is also increasing the relevance of its work by focusing more on clusters of EU priority policies, in the context of the consultative function assigned to it by the Treaties.

5.15.

In so doing, the EESC can make a significant contribution to building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty in policy areas of direct concern to citizens and to identifying possible shortcomings that would require changes and adjustments to the policies concerned in order to better meet their needs.