REVIEW BY THE COMMITTEE
The European Affairs Committee met on Thursday 19 April 2018 to review this report. Following the presentation given by Mr Jean Bizet, Mr Philippe Bonnecarrère and Mr Simon Sutour, a debate took place as follows:
Mr Jean Bizet , President . Ladies and gentleman, I would point out to you that this information report will be forwarded to the different Member States and I shall now hand over to you.
Mr Benoît Huré . This document should be included in the debate on future European elections. We must be proactive and, in the face of Euroscepticism, show that elected representatives have a vision of Europe. Well done!
Mr Pierre Ouzoulias . I share many of the opinions in this extensive report. It is important to engage in a broader theoretical debate on what the European Union is and what it could become.
Brexit calls into question the reports of certain Member States with each other. It would be a dreadful setback if tomorrow the Union was reduced to a common market.
Mr André Reichardt . I congratulate you on your report, ladies and gentlemen. The paradox that you have identified between Powerful Europe and European growth concerns me. On the one hand, the desire to better manage migratory flows and make the Schengen area an actual reality is supported by the French. On the other hand, in economic and social terms, they want Europe to be responsible for its own concerns.
We need to engage in in-depth work so that future elections have meaning.
The new division of powers that you so earnestly desire is of great interest to me. Its a case of treating European added value in a pragmatic way rather than being trapped by strictly defined powers. But the question remains on the definition of pragmatism
In effect, as you have emphasised, it would be preferable for the representation of the Member States within the Task Force to be more balanced, so that consideration of this dossier, essential for the future of Europe, is even better.
Mrs Pascale Gruny . I too wish to thank my colleagues for their work, critically important on the eve of the European elections.
We often say that our citizens are eurosceptics, but they dont know much about Europe and dont understand it. Too often, we ourselves forget to talk about it, and I am going to use this report to help explain it.
Mr Pascal Allizard . I add my thanks to those of my colleagues on the quality of and need for this report.
Today, I feel that Europe has reached a deadlock.
I had the opportunity to represent the Senate in a conference on energy in The Hague and I remember an element of intrusion in the sovereign choices of certain Member States. The topic of subsidiarity is an issue of real importance.
I will also give you some recent examples from working meetings in Brussels on the hot topic of migration.
A senior European office refused to answer my question on the possibility of moving the hotspots of the European costs to the southern shore of the Mediterranean on the grounds that it didn't fit with her beliefs!
A deputy director general of the Commission told me that my parliamentary role was to explain to my citizens that the policy formulated in Brussels was right!
Lastly, full of cynicism, an English director general took the view that the next round of negotiations on EU funds would be a chance to put Member States reluctant to accept migrants on a starvation diet... Its a grave mistake to think that Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic or Poland would agree to selling their identities for a few million euros.
These kinds of messages expressed by unelected leaders are unacceptable and, if they remain unchallenged, the European project will surely fail. If we were to hold a referendum on leaving the European Union in our country today, the outcome would be the same as in the United Kingdom, or even worse.
We must put policy back at the heart of Europe and make progress in areas chosen by the nations, and not by European officials.
Mr Didier Marie . I am reluctant to support the idea of Europe of the nations. The European Unions issues lie in the imbalance of power between the Council, Commission and the Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty has improved the representativeness of Parliament, but we need to further strengthen its powers.
The European project has a future if it focuses on responding to the concerns of the people. For many years, the European Union has embraced a liberal economic model which our citizens have largely rejected. There is a need for genuine political debate in the European Union, and the European project is bogged down by haggling between the Member States and the Council.
Rather than retreat from the idea of nation, we need to relaunch a European dynamic by legitimising European policies, in particular, those from the Parliament. In this regard, the proposal by the President of the Republic for transnational lists for the European elections is an interesting idea. We need to put policy back into the European debate and put an end to empty compromises. Europe fails to adopt strong positions on certain issues.
Mr Jean Bizet , President . Philippe Bonnecarrère , Simon Sutour and I are going to present this information report to Frans Timmermans. I myself am part of the Task Force support group.
We often criticise Europe for its lack of responsiveness. It is true that many policies require unanimity, and the qualified majority is still not easy to achieve.
The British withdrawal illustrates the tensions felt by the people towards a structure with which they no longer identify.
I should like the Tusk packagedrawn up before Brexit, to be implemented in the coming years in regard to subsidiarity, given that it responds, in part, to our questions.
Lastly, it seems to me that the procedure of enhanced cooperation has been under used: only 3 times in 20 years. We overcame the challenges from Italy and Spain to the European patent, the result being a 10-fold reduction in the cost of our patents. Europe based on variable geometry and concentric circles: this is an interesting avenue, even if it is difficult to achieve semantic satisfaction.
Mr Simon Sutour . Dont be too pessimistic. Two steps forward, one step back, but Europe is still moving forward!
Just a few years ago, I was asked to write a report on the reform of the wine CMO. When I told the Director-General for Agriculture at the Commission that I was planning to meet the European Parliament rapporteur of the project, he told me that I was wasting my time as the Parliament can only give its opinion. Today, co-decision procedures have multiplied.
I also remember a meeting of the Presidents of the European Affairs Committees where the energy future of the European Union was an agenda item. The Energy Commissioner at the time, Mr Oettinger, spoke for an hour without once mentioning the word nuclear. He was very upset when I pointed out this omission, but nevertheless he did not hesitate to tell us what to do in the future.
The conditionality of aid is very fashionable, in particular in the words of Mrs Loiseau: walk the line, or face the blows! I was one of the first to challenge this approach, in particular during a debate in a public meeting. It appears that we are taking a few backward steps, the President of the Republic however talks about social and fiscal convergence, which is more acceptable. Of course, nothing is perfect!
To end, I support regional languages and all European languages, but, for reasons of efficiency, I suggest that this report is translated into English.
Mr Jean Bizet , President . It is in hand!
Mr Philippe Bonnecarrère . I agree with the suggestion by our colleague Simon Sutour on the translation of this report. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to put the impact of the work on the monitoring of proportionality and subsidiarity into perspective, as counterparties presented to our citizens once Europe moves into a new phase. In reality, in cases where subsidiarity is used, we have at least fifty European instruments at our disposal. Here lies the paradox of a society that responds poorly to European devolution while still depending on Europe. Concerning social matters, for example, we would like to have a national policy provided that the Gothenburg process and the proclamation on the European Pillar on Social Rights make sense. It is up to us to explain to our citizens how to manage European complexity and the fact is that there is are no single answers to a question: the issues and decision making are so interwoven that the responses, often multiple, are made known after a relatively long time. We must improve our ability to express this reality. The French have a general understanding of the geopolitical importance of the European Union in relation to the United States and China, however their understanding remains limited regarding its actions towards other areas. In this regard, I propose that we produce a guide to European Union contributions, highlighting, for example, the benefits of the freedom of movement, voting rights and the harmonisation of telecoms practices. Regardless of their deficiencies, proportionality and subsidiarity still remain fundamental principles of the European Union.
Mr Pascal Allizard . I share Simon Sutours view on the conditionality of aid. I am working with Gisèle Jourda on the Silk Roads project and can assure you that the border States of the European Union will have little use for this principle as China will be more generous to them than Europe.
Mrs Gisèle Jourda . - Absolutely!
Mr Jean Bizet , President . You make a very valid point.
Mr René Danesi . I would remind you that in November 2017, the Chinese Prime Minister held a meeting with sixteen central and eastern European countries from the so-called 16+1 club. Certainly, the Chinese promises have not yet come to fruition, but China is committed to upgrading the railway line between Piraeus and Budapest: a gesture appreciated at a time when Europe, in contrast, requires Greece to part with its jewels! China does not however provide us with any lessons with respect to the rule of law or the reception of immigrants
Mr Jean Bizet , President . I want to thank you for this very valuable debate. Mr Bonnecarrère, we are actually considering, in the run-up to the European elections in 2019, publishing a citizens guide to European Union results and perspectives. As Simon Sutour reminded us, Europe, at its own pace, is moving forward! Taking competition law, which five years ago we deemed inappropriate, has seen improvement thanks to the Omnibus regulation. We are now seeking how to portray, without offending, a Europe of differentiated temporality, in concentric circles: the Member States cannot all progress at the same speed. I can confirm that the report will be translated into English.
*
At the close of this debate, the committee unanimously authorises the publication of the information report.