The European Parliament at its session in February has approved a triptych of reports of an institutional nature, respectively concerning the future of the EU (Verhofstadt report), a wider application of the Lisbon Treaty (Bresso-Brok report) and the strengthening of the Eurozone (Böge-Berès report). About this last report, a specific comment was published on issue 3/2016 of The Federalist Debate.
In general terms, we need to observe that the three above-mentioned reports are mutually complementary and they do not contain contradictory proposals, partly thanks to a long gestation in the competent parliamentary Commissions (around 18 months). The old days are over, when the European Parliament approved a report of the budgetary Committee in which was demanded to reduce the agricultural expenses of the EU whilst, within a short period of time, a report of the agricultural Committee demanded to increase the European agricultural products' prices.
In the three recent reports, the EP observes that the consequences of the several crises which have affected the EU over the last few years (economic, social, migratory, environmental, security crises), have caused a growing estrangement of the public opinion from the European Union. This is because the EU cannot manage to give appropriate solutions to the crises, while national States do not have the necessary means to fight them. For this reason, on the one hand the EP asks for the exploitation of all the potential of the Lisbon Treaty, in order to allow the European institutions to take decisions aiming to regain the consensus of the people (Bresso-Brok report). On the other hand, it asks for a reform of the Treaties in order to give the EU the necessary tools and mechanisms for an efficient decision-making, so that it can provide tangible answers to the European citizens (Verhofstad report).
The three reports approved by the European Parliament contain a series of common proposals and requests, which can be summarized as follows. First of all, the statement of the prevalence of the Community method over the Intergovernmental method in the European decision-making process –thanks to the European Commission's right of initiative, to the qualified majority decision-making of the Council and to the European Parliament's power of legislative co-decision. Secondly, the opportunity to strengthen the executive role of the European Commission and the legislative role of the European Parliament, while the Council of Ministers should become a Chamber of the States, as in the federal systems. Last, the growth of transparency and of citizen participation in the decision-making process of the EU, also modifying the instrument, introduced with the Lisbon Treaty, of the European Citizen Initiative.
Furthermore, the three reports foretell the creation of a Eurozone fiscal capacity, through a financial instrument funded by ad hoc contributions from the Member States using the single currency, and registered under a separate heading in the European budget, outside of the multi-annual financial framework.
Besides these common features, the Bresso-Brok report is marked by a series of proposals aiming to strengthen and democratize the European institutions, while respecting the existing Treaties, through the instrument of inter-institutional agreements (according to a technique which was largely used by the European Parliament in the past), and, above all, is marked by a detailed study of the Treaty dispositions concerning the external action of the EU, its defense policy, justice and internal affairs, the financial integration and the social dimension, which deserve to be extensively exploited in order to answer to the citizen's expectations. As an example, at the institutional level, the Bresso-Brok report proposes that the Council of Ministers be transformed in a true second Chamber, and its specific formations become preparatory bodies, similar to the parliamentary Commissions; also, it proposes that every Member State should propose at least three candidates of both genders to the appointment of European Commissioner, and that the Council should decide to vote with qualified majority using the so-called “passerelle clauses” allowed by the Lisbon Treaty.
In the fields of policies, the Bresso-Brok report proposes an extensive implementation of the Treaty's dispositions regarding common foreign and security policy, defense policy, internal affairs and judiciary cooperation. For instance, the report suggests the creation of a permanent Council of Defense Ministers in order to coordinate national defense policies, and the implementation of the permanent enhanced-cooperation established by Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Furthermore, the report proposes the institution of a European Public Prosecutor provided by the same Treaty, as well as a common European asylum system, with the resulting revision of the Dublin Regulation. Regarding the internal policies, the report contemplates among other things the creation of a European Energy Agency, the use of “project bonds” in order to fund infrastructural projects, and the promotion of a minimum wage to be defined by each Member State.
Occasionally, the report contains some proposals which cannot remain, as stated, within the limits of the existing Treaties, but would make it necessary to modify the Treaties. For instance, the strengthening of the EP role in the Eurozone governance and the fusion between the role of President of the Eurogroup and the role of Vice-President of the Economic and Financial Affairs Commission.
The European Parliament's resolution concerning the Bresso-Brok report has been adopted with 329 votes in favor, 223 against and 83 abstentions. The result shows that there is a consistent majority inside the EP willing to fully exploit the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. Nevertheless, as we are going to see, this majority does not correspond to the measly one that turned out for the adoption of the Verhofstadt report about the Treaties' review.
Actually, the Verhofstadt report, which contains more ambitious proposals to change the existing Treaties, has been approved with a smaller majority: 238 votes in favor and 269 against, while there were 83 abstentions, as for the Bresso-Brok report. This result shows the presence, inside the European Parliament, of a strong resistance against changing the existing Treaties, probably because a lot of Members of the EP, mainly from the States that are more reluctant to transfer further sovereignty to the EU, are afraid of helping the creation of a two-speed Europe, where the Eurozone States would strengthen their political integration. The result of the vote explains why Guy Verhofstadt preferred to sweeten his report's conclusion, in which he has given up on asking the quick convocation of a European Convention under Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty, merely proposing instead that the 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaties would be the occasion to start thinking about the EU's future. Therefore, the Verhofstadt report indicates the possibility for the European Parliament to make its own formal proposals of amendment of the Treaties at the right moment, instead of immediately invoking Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty, which enshrines the right for the EP to propose these amendments and to call for the convocation of a European Convention.
The resolution approved by the European Parliament believes that the time of incremental decisions is over, because now it is time to start a comprehensive reform of the Lisbon Treaty, even admitting that, in the meantime, the opportunities given by the existing Treaties can be exploited to the most.
Thus, the resolution stands against the proliferation of opting-out clauses and against the idea of a Europe à la carte, or a variable-geometry Europe, to the benefit of maintaining a single institutional framework, which ensures the principle of equality of all the citizens and of all the Members States. Equally, the resolution declares itself against the intergovernmental method, and in favor of the Community method, in order to create a transparent and democratically legitimated European legislation, thanks to the key roles of the European Parliament and the Supreme Court of Justice.
In this way, the European Parliament adopts beforehand a position against the third scenario described in the European Commission's White Book on the Future of Europe, where a differentiated integration is presented as a system that could practically work à la carte. In that scenario, differentiated and occasional groups of Members States would apply different laws and rules depending on the sector chosen for a European-level enhanced cooperation/integration. However, paradoxically, the Verhofstadt report also proposes to make the criteria to start an enhanced cooperation less restrictive, for instance by reducing the requested minimum number of participating Member States.
Concerning the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, the report envisages a new form of partnership with the EU, and sets some precise requirements for the conclusion of the agreement between the two parties (especially, it demands the full compliance to the four freedoms for the access to the single European market).
In addition, concerning the new Eurozone economic governance, the report agrees with the idea of adopting a “Code of Convergence” as a condition for the creation of a “fiscal capacity” in the Eurozone, based on real resources and on a European Treasury, in the domain of the Commission, which should give the possibility to contract loans and which should be responsible to the EP.
What follows is a summary of the numerous and ambitious change proposals of the Treaties contained in the Verhofstadt report.
1) The creation of a Finance Minister of the Eurozone inside the European Commission, responsible to the European Parliament; the assignment to the European Commission of the power to formulate and to implement a EU common economic policy, supported by a specific budget of the Eurozone;
2) The substantial reduction of the College of European Commissioners, including the reduction of the Vice-Presidents to two;
3) The attribution to every European citizen of each Member State of the right to vote directly the candidates of European political parties to the post of President of the European Commission, through a European-wide electoral list;
4) The attribution to the European Stability Mechanism of the possibility of acting as lender of last resort under the ECB control;
5) The extension of the EU competences in matters of common energy policy and immigration policy; the creation of a European Office of investigation and fight against terrorism, along the lines of the American FBI;
6) The conversion of the High Representative for the CFSP into the European Minister of Foreign Affairs, representing the EU in international organizations;
7) The amendment of Article 258 TFEU in order to allow the European Commission to start systematic procedures of infringement against the Member States that violate the EU fundamental rights;
8) The extension to the European citizens of the right to appeal directly before the Court of Justice against a violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
9) The bestowal on the European Parliament of the competence to decide on its own seat;
10) The shift from unanimity to majority vote in matters still to be decided unanimously, like foreign and defense policy, social policy and taxation;
11) The reinforcement of the powers of national Parliaments with the introduction of a new procedure called “green card”, which allows the national Parliaments to submit legislative proposals to the EU Council. At the same time, also the EU legislators (Parliament and Council) should have the right to initiate legislation, without affecting the actual prerogatives of the European Commission;
12) The institution of an authentic system of EU own resources, which reduces national contributions, abandons the “fair return” criteria and all type of refunds to the Member States; the multi-annual financial framework should be decided by qualified majority and co-decided with the European Parliament;
13) The modification of the procedure for the ratification of the Treaties, which is considered too strict, since it requires the unanimous approval of the Member States and national ratifications. The European Parliament proposes instead that the ratification be made with the 4/5 majority of the member-States and the approval of the European Parliament itself, unless a pan-European referendum is called for.
The list of the main amendments proposed in the Verhofstadt report confirms the ambitious nature of the reform of the Treaties voted, even with a small majority, by the European Parliament. Based on this resolution, the European Parliament reserved for itself the power, recognized by the Lisbon Treaty, to propose formal modifications to the existing Treaties and to start the constitutive process for the drafting of a new Treaty.
Once the EU is done with the UK withdrawal process, we can expect that the European Parliament, on the initiative of Guy Verhofstadt, will take full responsibility to formally start the revision process of the Treaties. However, this procedure will need the unanimous agreement of the 27 Members States, followed by a Parliamentary ratification or a national referendum in the EU states. The procedure cannot be sidetracked, unless a group of States decides in turn to withdraw from the EU and sign a new international agreement between them, on the basis of the rebus sic stantibus clause of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties.
Translated by Cecilia Mellana