Reuniao do Bureau, da AG e Symposium sobre bicameralismo da AEAP em Paris, Fevereiro de 2010

Teve lugar em Paris a 26 de Fevereiro a reunião do bureau de aprovaçao do programa de actividades para 2010, e a assembleia geral da AEAP para aprovação de contas e de eleitoral para a renovação do mandato da Direcção para o biénio 2010-2012, e ainda um a symposium sobre bicameralismo.

As reuniões decorreram na sala de reuniões Clemenceau, e a recepção e almoço de trabalho na sala Napoleão e Púrpura do edificio principal do Senado, junto aos jardins do Luxemburgo. A nova direccção conta com o representante da AEDAR Luis Nandin de Carvalho, eleito em assembleia geral para um dos cargos de Vice Presidente da Associação Europeia dos Antigos Parlamentares. O Presidente é de Chipre, e os outros dois Vice - Presidentes são respectivamente os representantes da Italia e da França, sendo o Tesoureiro da Holanda, todos indicados por parte das respectivas associções nacionais de antigos parlamentares.

Mais informação no site da Associação Europeia em:

http://www.fp-ap.org/

Texto 1

SENATE FRENCH REPUBLIC

EUROPEAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

EXCHANGE OF VIEWS OF 26 FEBRUARY 2010
SPEECH BY Mr HUBERT HAENEL:
'THE ROLES OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AFTER THE LISBON TREATY'
***

The spectre of democratic legitimacy has always haunted European construction but, as long as the latter kept a mainly economic content, it attracted attention only episodically.
In the economic field, indeed, questions of principles had been settled at the outset by the treaties themselves; it was a matter of implementing these principles, by reaching compromises and allowing for transitions.
That's why, despite the authority resulting from its election by direct suffrage from 1979 on, the European Parliament initially had difficulty in finding its place in the operation of the Union, managing to really assert itself only in the budgetary field.
The Maastricht Treaty formed a watershed, by allowing European construction to penetrate 'regalian' fields: not only did it set in place a single currency, it also set up a Union whose second and third pillars were of a political nature: the goals of the second and third pillars were an affirmation of Europe in foreign policy, security and defence matters, and the construction of an internal area of freedom, security and justice.
European construction therefore addressed fields where it needed sufficient democratic legitimacy for its action to be seen as justified, and the topic of a Union 'democratic deficit' was more than ever in the forefront.
The response to this 'deficit' has been sought, treaty after treaty, by developing the powers of the European Parliament.
The Maastricht Treaty already contained, in this respect, major advances. It made the Parliament's agreement necessary for many decisions: the most important international agreements, rules on the right of residence and circulation of Union citizens, basic rules on the structural funds and the cohesion fund, statutes of the European system of central banks, and a uniform procedure for European elections. It also set in place, in some fields, the co-decision procedure whereby legislation cannot be adopted by the Council, even if it votes unanimously, if the Parliament voices opposition. Last, the monitoring powers of the Assembly were considerably broadened: the Commission, now renewed after each European election, had to receive a vote of appointment by the Parliament, and the latter now had the right to set up committees of inquiry.
The Amsterdam Treaty pursued this evolution: the co-decision procedure was amended to reach complete equality between the Parliament and the Council; above all, it was extended to many fields, becoming the ordinary procedure when the Council votes by a majority. The political monitoring of the Parliament over the Commission was strengthened by a double appointment procedure (the Parliament appoints first the President of the Commission, then the Commission as a college, after hearing each of the appointed members). Last, the Parliament received a major instrument of exercising influence with respect to the common foreign and security policy, since the expenditure of this policy is charged to the Community budget unless the Council voting by a majority decides otherwise.
The Nice Treaty prolonged this trend, by extending the co-decision procedure to the new subjects where the Council was now called on to vote by qualified majority. Also, this legislation increased the powers of the Parliament regarding referrals to the Court of Justice: whereas before it could only make a referral to the ECJ to safeguard its own prerogatives or or to have it certified that another institution had failed to implement a provision of the treaties, it was now given – in the same way as a Member State – the possibility of taking proceedings against acts of the Council, Commission or European Central Bank (ECB), whether for lack of jurisdiction, violation of substantive provisions, violation of the Treaty establishing the European Community, or misuse of power.
The Lisbon Treaty put the finishing touches to the evolution towards a 'parliamentarisation' of European construction, but in an innovatory manner, not only by further strengthening the powers of the European Parliament, but by granting a specific role to national parliaments.
With the Lisbon Treaty, the legislative role of the European Parliament has been considerably increased by the generalisation (subject to a very limited number of exceptions) of the co-decision procedure which will now also apply regarding justice and internal affairs, the common agricultural policy, agricultural legislation...
Its budgetary powers are also increasing owing to the suppression of the notion of 'compulsory expenditure', whereas this share of the budget, comprising mainly agricultural expenditure, practically cannot be amended today by the Parliament. The Council and the Parliament are placed on an equal footing in the budgetary procedure; however, if an agreement is reached in the conciliation committee between the representatives of the Parliament and those of the Council, but if the latter then rejects said agreement, the Parliament has the final say and can take up again all or part of the amendments it had adopted in first reading.
The European Parliament is now at the heart of the Union's institutions, with broad powers which it exercises independently, not being tied to any government by having to toe the majority line, as is ordinarily the case in a parliamentary regime.
Alongside these changes, which follow on logically from the previous treaties, the Lisbon Treaty contains more innovatory provisions in the sense that they grant a role to national parliaments in the very operation of the Union.
The first aspect of this role is to ensure compliance with the subsidiarity principle.
The adopted mechanism comprises three aspects:
- Any chamber of a national parliament may, within eight weeks from the date of transmission of a draft legislative act, send to the Union institutions a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the draft in question does not comply with the subsidiarity principle. The Union institutions 'take account' of the reasoned opinions sent to them. When a third of national parliaments have sent a reasoned opinion, the draft must be reviewed (for legislation relating to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, this threshold is decreased to a quarter). For the application of this rule, each national parliament has two votes; in a bicameral system, each chamber has one vote;
– If a draft legislative act is disputed by a simple majority of the votes allocated to national parliaments and if the Commission decides to maintain the draft, the Council and the Parliament must consider whether the draft is compatible with the subsidiarity principle; if the Council (by a majority of 55% of its members) or the Parliament (by a simple majority) gives a negative response, the draft is not given further consideration;
– After the adoption of legislation, the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in actions on grounds of the infringement of the subsidiarity principle brought by a Member State's national parliament or a chamber thereof. The action is always formally presented by the government of a Member State, but the protocol sets forth the possibility of it being simply 'transmitted' by said government, the real instigator of the action being the national parliament or a chamber thereof.
National parliaments are also involved in the implementation of 'bridging clauses' allowing a switch from unanimity to a qualified majority for Council decisions, or a switch from a procedure other than co-decision between the European Parliament and the Council to the co-decision procedure. The decision to implement a 'bridging clause' is taken unanimously by the European Council. It must be approved by the European Parliament. However, before the decision is taken, each national parliament has a right to object. Once the European Council has demonstrated its intention to use a 'bridging clause', this initiative is transmitted to the national parliaments. This transmission marks the beginning of a six month period during which any national parliament can oppose the implementation of the 'bridging clause'. If, when this period expires, no national parliament has notified its opposition, the European Council can vote.
Last, some provisions of the treaty involve national parliaments in the constitution of the area of freedom, security and justice. They lay down that 'national parliaments shall be informed of the content and results' of the evaluation of the implementation, by the authorities of the Member States, of Union policies in the area of freedom, security and justice, and they 'shall be kept informed of the proceedings' of the standing committee promoting coordination between the authorities of the Member States with respect to internal security. Above all, the new treaty specifies that national parliaments are involved 'in the evaluation of the activities of Eurojust' and in 'scrutiny of the activities of Europol'. In addition, national parliaments have a right to object (similar to that laid down for 'bridging clauses') when the Council determines the list of aspects of family law with cross-border implications.
This new involvement of national parliaments could contribute in several respects to strengthening the legitimacy of the Union. First, because better scrutiny of compliance with the subsidiarity principle, by encouraging the Union's action to be refocused on the fields where it is particularly necessary, cannot but strengthen the acceptability of this action. Then, because involving national parliaments to a greater extent is tantamount to strengthening their role as a relay and a connecting thread between the Union's citizens. Last, because by being more directly involved in the Union's activities, national parliaments will be all the less able to shirk their responsibilities as regards scrutiny of the European policy conducted by their governments.
More generally, the double parliamentarisation brought about by the Lisbon Treaty – this treaty is often called the 'parliaments' treaty' – appears to be in the spirit of European construction as a 'federation of Nation-States', according to Jacques Delors words, because a federation of this type – aimed at the joint exercise of sovereignties rather than the advent of a new sovereignty replacing that of Member States – cannot be based either on a single decisional method or on a single form of legitimacy: it must involve and combine all the legitimacies.

Texto 2

SENATE FRENCH REPUBLIC

The Chairman
EXCHANGE OF VIEWS OF 26 FEBRUARY 2010
COMPLEMENTARY DOCUMENT

ELEMENTS ON THE IDEA OF A 'EUROPEAN SENATE'
***

I – Brief history
The idea of creating a 'European Senate' representing national parliaments is an idea that has been part of the European debate since the beginnings of Community construction, and which has been aired on various occasions over the past twenty years.
The goal pursued by the proponents of this idea is to involve national parliaments in European construction to strengthen its ties with citizens.
The experience of the Convention (2002-2003) has shown that this idea, often poorly understood, encounters very strong opposition:
– That of the European Parliament, which sees in it the risk of a competing body,
– That of most member countries (governments and parliaments), hostile in principle to the creation of a new body ('no new body' were the words most often heard at the Convention).
The main objection raised by the idea of a 'European Senate' is that the European system is already bicameral, since European legislation is drafted on a co-decision basis by the European Parliament and the Council. The latter is already, in a way, a 'second Chamber'.
While the Convention very rapidly dismissed the idea of a 'European Senate', it dwelt longer on the idea, launched by Mr Giscard d’Estaing, of a 'Congress' which would have convened, each year, European and national parliamentarians.
According to Mr Giscard d’Estaing, the 'Congress' would have had a double role: it would have elected the stable president of the European Council and would have been the framework, each year, of a great debate on the 'state of the Union' during which the various European leaders would have reported on their action and received criticisms and suggestions from parliamentarians.
This proposal was greatly combated by the European Parliament, and also by some States which, highly reserved as to the setting in place of a stable presidency of the European Council, feared that its election by the 'Congress' would strengthen its legitimacy.
Finally, the idea of the 'Congress' was cancelled by the Convention.
II ‑ Present forms of involvement of national parliaments
National parliaments are already collectively involved in European construction in various ways:
– The Conference of Speakers of National Parliaments and the European Parliament. This Conference, commonly named the 'Conference of Speakers of European Union Parliaments', has been meeting regularly since 1981.
– The Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC). The first COSAC took place in Paris in November 1989. Since then, the COSAC has met every half year in the country holding the presidency of the Union. In 1997, it was incorporated in the Union's primary law by a protocol appended to the Amsterdam Treaty.
– The WEU Assembly (European Security and Defence Interparliamentary Assembly). This assembly, which holds two meetings a year, remains the only European parliamentary body where national parliamentarians can collectively follow up security and defence issues.
– The Conventions. The Convention mechanism – aimed at preparing changes in the treaties – has been used on two occasions: firstly, in 1999-2000, to draft the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights; secondly, in 2002-2003, to prepare the draft treaty establishing a European Constitution. This mechanism is characterised by the meeting of the representatives of all the European legitimacies: governments, European Commission, European Parliament and national parliaments.
– Informal cooperation. Alongside the institutionalised forms of interparliamentary cooperation there are other types of contacts, which result either from initiatives of the European Parliament, or from initiatives of the parliament of the Member State holding the presidency, or from joint initiatives.
III – Possible directions
Relaunching the idea of 'European Senate' in the present context would have scant chance of being followed up positively. First, it would encounter the objections it has always fostered; second, it would take place in a context marked by the determination 'to turn the institutional page', after the failure of the ratification of the constitutional treaty and then the ratification difficulties of the Lisbon Treaty
On the other hand, there is a major movement in favour of a better involvement of national parliaments in European construction.
This movement is based on two concerns:
– First, the negative referendums have demonstrated the existence of a gap between citizens and European construction, and a better involvement of national parliaments could contribute to closing this gap;
– Second, the central place now occupied by the European Parliament (armed with the legitimacy resulting from its direct election), within the Union's institutions makes some believe that a greater involvement of national parliaments would allow the Commission and the Council to regain some space.
Therefore, the topic of the role of national parliaments can continue to be put forward, provided proposals entailing a revision of the treaties are avoided.
With this in mind, two ideas could be put across:
– First, strengthen and rationalise interparliamentary cooperation. As we have seen, there are already many forms of collective involvement of national parliaments in European construction. But these various forms, barely coordinated and poorly known, are not in a position to exercise influence on the functioning of the Union. The COSAC alone, owing to it being acknowledged in the treaties, is managing to play a certain role over time. A rationalisation of interparliamentary cooperation based in a special manner on the COSAC – which the treaties already allow – would probably allow the collective involvement of national parliaments to have greater weight. A strengthened COSAC could therefore progressively become, in actual fact, the embryo of a 'European Senate'.
– Second, relaunch the idea of the 'Congress'. The experience of joint parliamentary meetings has shown the interest of periodic meetings between European and national parliamentarians on topical issues. Organising a solemn meeting, once a year, of representatives of the European Parliament and of national parliaments for a great debate on the 'state of the Union' is possible without having to revise the treaties: provided this meeting would be aimed at a political debate and not at taking a legally binding decision, it could take place pragmatically, and could be institutionalised later as was the case for the COSAC.

Apelo de Lisboa, aprovado pela Associação Europeia de Antigos Parlamentares reunida em Lisboa de 22/24 de Outubro 2009

LES ANCIENS PARLEMENTAIRES EN EUROPE :
QUEL ROLE ET QUEL STATUT DANS LA SOCIETE POLITIQUE ET CIVILE
APPEL DE LISBONNE

Adopté par les participants au séminaire organisé par l’Association européenne des anciens parlementaires des pays membres du Conseil de l’Europe
(Lisbonne, 23 octobre 2009)

Les délégués de l’Association européenne des anciens parlementaires des pays membres du Conseil de l’Europe, réunis en séminaire à Lisbonne le 23 octobre 2009 remercient l’Association portugaise de son chaleureux accueil et conviennent de lancer l’Appel ci dessous
:
Les anciens parlementaires européens :
- Soulignent que l’objet de l’Association est de promouvoir l’idéal européen et de contribuer à la construction européenne. A cet effet elle se fixe pour objectif de mieux faire connaître les institutions européennes. L’Association peut organiser des rencontres et colloques consacrés à l’étude des grands problèmes de société (voir
Statuts, art. 1er)
- Rappellent que depuis sa création officielle en 1994, l’Association européenne n’a cessé de s’élargir et de diversifier ses thèmes de réflexion. Le séminaire de Lisbonne a été l’occasion de faire le point sur le rôle et le statut des anciens élus dans les 17 pays membres.

- Considèrent que la signature le 7 septembre 2009 du Memorandum d’entente entre l’Association européenne et l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe marque une étape très importante dans la vie de l’Association. Ce document consacre les relations traditionnelles d’amitié entre l’Association et le Conseil de l’Europe en ouvrant de nouvelles perspectives de coopération dans les domaines d’intérêt commun tels que la sauvegarde des Droits de l’Homme, le renforcement de la démocratie et de l’Etat de droit.
- Réaffirment leur volonté de coopérer activement avec les institutions parlementaires européennes, à organiser des manifestations communes sur des thèmes spécifiques notamment le développement durable des conditions de vie et les défis du vieillissement de la population en Europe. L’adhésion à l’Association de l’Association des anciens députés au Parlement européen ne peut que favoriser ces objectifs.
- Souhaitent que les orientations futures de l’Association permettent notamment la consolidation de la valeur et de la portée des colloques et séminaires de l’Association, l’utilisation optimale des potentialités du site internet, la poursuite de l’élargissement, la participation accrue des associations membres au développement et au rayonnement de l’Association.
- Appuient le projet de création d’une Assemblée parlementaire des Nations Unies,
instance indispensable pour garantir la dimension parlementaire de la gouvernance mondiale en cours de gestation. La mondialisation de l’économie doit aller de pair avec la mondialisation de la démocratie et le renforcement des contrôles sur les grandes institutions financières.
- Soulignent l’importance que revêtira le Colloque de Kiev d’octobre 2010 consacré aux problèmes de l’immigration et des réfugiés. Ce colloque marquera l’adhésion de l’Ukraine à l’Association européenne dans le cadre de son processus d’élargissement vers l’Est.
- Soutiennent l’idée d’une «Charte européenne des anciens parlementaires » enrichie des idées concrètes et positives émises par les associations lors du Séminaire de Lisbonne. Cette charte devrait être le socle de valeurs partagées, d’objectifs communs et d’instruments adaptés à une coopération élargie avec les institutions européennes et internationales y compris les voies et moyens pour mettre à profit l’expérience et les connaissances des anciens parlementaires.
- Appellent les anciens parlementaires des pays membres du Conseil de l’Europe, non adhérents à l’Association européenne à la rejoindre en créant des associations nationales permettant ainsi de valoriser davantage encore l’expérience politique et législative qu’ils ont acquise dans leur pays respectif.

FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS IN EUROPE:
WHAT ROLE AND WHAT STATUS IN POLITICAL AND CIVIL SOCIETY
LISBON APPEAL

Adopted by the participants in the seminar organised by the European Association of former members of the member states of the Council of Europe
(Lisbon, 23 October 2009)

The delegates of the European Association of Former Members of Parliament of the member states of the Council of Europe, convened in a seminar in Lisbon on 23 October 2009, thank the Portuguese Association for its warm welcome and agree to launch the following appeal:
Former European parliamentarians:
 Stress that the aim of the European Association is to promote the European ideal and to contribute to the European construction. To this end, its objective is to make the European institutions better known. The Association may organise meetings and colloquies aimed at examining the major problems of society (see Statutes, art. 1).
 Recall that since its official creation in 1994, the FP-AP has not ceased to grow and diversify its topics of analysis. The Lisbon seminar has been an opportunity to take stock of the role and status of former elected representatives in the 17 member countries.
 Consider that the signature on 7 September 2009 of the Memorandum of understanding between the FP-AP and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe marks a very important step in the life of the association. This document enshrines the traditional relations of amity between the FP-AP and the Council of Europe while opening new prospects of cooperation in common fields of interest such as the safeguard of human rights, and the strengthening of democracy and the rule of law.
 Reaffirm their determination to cooperate actively with European parliamentary institutions, and organise joint events on specific topics, in particular the unstainable development of living conditions and the challenges of population ageing in Europe. Membership of the FP-AP by the European Parliament Former Members Association cannot but promote these goals.
 Desire that the FP-AP's future policy choices will in particular consolidate the value and impact of the association's colloquies and seminars, allow optimal use of all the potential of the Internet site, help pursue enlargement, and help increased participation of members associations in the association's development and influence.
 Support the project for the creation of a United Nations parliamentary assembly, an essential body to guarantee the parliamentary dimension of a world governance in the making. The globalisation of the economy must go hand in hand with the globalisation of democracy and a strengthening of supervision over major financial institutions.
 Emphasise the importance of the Kiev colloquy to be held in October 2010 on the problems of immigration and refugees. This colloquy will mark Ukraine's membership of the FP-AP as part of its enlargement to the East.
 Support the idea of a 'European Charter for former parliamentarians' that has been enriched with the concrete and positive ideas put forward by the associations at the Lisbon seminar. This charter should be the basis of shared values, joint goals and instruments adapted to broad cooperation with European and international institutions including ways and means to make use of the experience and knowledge of former parliamentarians.
 Call on former parliamentarians of member states of the Council of Europe which have not joined the FP-AP to become members by creating national associations.
This will enhance all the more the political and legislative experience they have acquired in their respective countries.

Reunião de junho, da Direcção da AEAP no Luxemburgo

Discurso do Presidente Camile Dimmer,
de apreciação do resultado das eleições europeias na UE
na reunião do bureau da Associaçao Europeia em 19 de Junho de 2009

Statement by President Dimmer

European elections: the new context in Europe


The very high rate of abstentions at the elections of 7 June is of course the most striking fact to be noted. Nearly 60% of abstentions among 388 million voters called on to elect the 736 MEPs – that shows a worrisome disaffection with the institution representing the peoples of the Union, exacerbated by the fact that the rate of abstentions is constantly progressing at every election.

This situation is due to structural reasons and ones linked to the current economic climate.

a) Structural reasons: Since the outset, European construction, which is admittedly a complex legal and institutional model, has not been clearly perceived by citizens. Unlike at national elections, they do not feel they can make a choice that will influence the Union's policy positions. This is exacerbated by the fact that MEPs are profoundly out of step with their electoral base, and the public is insufficiently informed of European work not only by governmental institutions but also by the media. The latter give greater prominence to national information to the detriment of regular reports on the activity of the European institutions. The European Parliament's specific work methods based on agreements between the various political groups are not of a nature to clarify the image voters have of it.

b) Reasons linked to the current economic climate: We must not forget that the elections took place in a context of a large scale financial and economic crisis. Citizens are demanding as a matter of priority solutions providing a way out of this crisis. However, they have not felt that these solutions were European because, from the beginning of the financial crisis, it is governments which have taken the initiative. The European Commission has stayed very much in the background and no joint pan-European recovery plan has been set in place. It is therefore surprising that voters showed indifference to the European Parliament, an institution representing European democracy, at the very time when the powers of this parliament are constantly growing and it will increasingly be in a position to influence decisions.

c) Other remarks: Everything is far from being negative in the result of these elections. While globally the traditional EPP.ESP political set-up remains, although framed by a strong progression of the ecologists and Europhobic parties, reasons for hope in the future have appeared. On the one hand, the old quarrel between federalists and sovereignists is tending to fade. Everyone can clearly see that we are heading towards an original European model, unique in the world, and that the institutional debate has found its limits. Moreover, in Ireland, supporters of the no to the referendum are no longer in the majority, which augurs well for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Also, and this is a consequence of the above, the debate no longer concerns the European construction project, now an acquired fact, including the Euro, but the content of this construction, and the way of ensuring its governance.

Lastly, it is clear that the European Parliament, of which the Lisbon Treaty further increases the co-legislation powers, is set to play an increasingly important role in European construction. MEPs amended 71% of the directives during the last legislature, in particular the controversial Bolkestein directive, which clearly demonstrates the weight of its influence. The granting to the EP of a genuine 'right to initiate legislation', in other words the possibility to propose legislative texts, a privilege today reserved to the Commission, will one day – let's hope – put the finishing touch to the irreplaceable democratic base formed by the EP among the Union's institutions.

(Aspectos parciais ad reunião do Bureau do Associação Europeia dos Antigos Parlamentares que teve lugar a 19 de Junho de 2009 na Càmara de Deputados do Luxemburgo)

(Guarda de armas do grão Duque)

Apreciaçao do relatorio e contas do exercicio da AEDAR de 2009

Presentes na Mesa da AG o Presidente da Direcção Dr. Luis Barbosa, o Presidente da Mesa da AG, Antonio Maia e a secretária da mesa Lourdes Pombo. Reunião realizada no auditorium da Casa Amarela da AR.

l

Reuniao da AEAP ( bureau e assembleia geral) da Primavera de 2009 em Paris