questionnaire on european policies

SIÈGE SOCIAL

Square de Meeûs, 25 - BE 1000 Bruxelles (Belgique)

Phone : + (32) 2 508 30 84 – Fax + (32) 2 508 30 89

SECRÉTARIAT ET ADMINISTRATION

Avenue du Rond Point, 10 - BE-1330 Rixensart (Belgique)

Phone & Fax : +32 2 652 27 82

Courriel : [email protected]

MOBILE : +32 473 291 674

http://www.forum-civil-society.org or http://en.forum-civil-society.org

PERMANENT FORUM OF EUROPEAN CIVIL SOCIETY

Questionnaire on

European policies Going beyond Lisbon

of 24

Index

Preface............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Foreign Policy and External Action (Title V TEU and Part V TFEU) ........................................ 4

Policies on Border Checks, Asylum and Immigration (Articles 77-80 TFEU) ..................................................... 7

Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (Articles 82 -86 TFEU).................................................................. 9

Economic and Monetary Policy (Title VIII TFEU, Artt. 119 – 144).......................................... 11

Social Policy (Articles 151-161 TFEU) .............................................................................................................. 13

Education, Vocational Training, Youth and Sport (Articles 165-166 TFEU)..................................................... 15

Industry (Art. 173 TFEU) .................................................................................................................................. 17

Energy Policy (Art. 194 TFEU) .......................................................................................................................... 19

Values, Competences and Principles of Conferral, Subsidiarity and Proportionality (Articles 3-5 TEU, Articles

2-6 TFEU, Protocol 2)....................................................................................................................................... 21

The Principle of Conferral (Article 5 § 1TEU and Articles 2-6 TFEU) ............................... 24

of 24

Preface

The financial, economic and euro crises, as well as social unrest and rising populism are seriously questioning the EU and undermining its foundations. It is time for a collective reaction of European institutions, elected representatives and citizens.

In this regard, the Permanent Forum of European Civil Society urges the definition of a new Societal Compact. In particular, a European Convention for "New Prosperity" should be convened in 2013. It would focus on drafting a roadmap called "Good life for all in an inclusive European Union" that will define the European societal compact and which will be prefaced by a "Declaration of Interdependence". This initiative would be a key initiative prior to the European electoral campaign 2014 by demonstrating to the European Citizens that the EU has made a major step addressing social inclusion & jobs-rich recovery, social, economic and environmental justice, better chance to Europe’s Youth, transition to a low carbon and resource efficient growth, well-being for all.

The adoption of a European Societal Compact for a "New Prosperity" must necessarily precede a revision of the Treaties aiming at a Treaty revision setting up a "New Democracy", because the debate on the democratic government of the EU must be based on its conception of society (Weltanschauung) defined in the societal compact. For this reason a second European Convention for "New Democracy" should be convened.

The questionnaire as elaborated wants to prepare the workings of the first Convention for "New Prosperity". It has to be conceived as a preparatory document for stimulating the debate on EU policies and consequently draft of the mandate of the above-mentioned Convention.

Questionnaires 1 to 9 question and ask for a critical assessment of TEU and TFEU articles referring to the following EU policies: Foreign Policy and External Action (questionnaire 1); Border Checks, Asylum and Immigration (questionnaire 2); Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (questionnaire 3); Economic and Monetary Policy (questionnaire 4); Social Policy (questionnaire 5); Education, Vocational Training, Youth and Sport (questionnaire 6); Industry (questionnaire 7); and Energy (questionnaire 8).

In questionnaire 9 attention will be driven to the general role and contribution of Values, Competences and Principles of Conferral, Subsidiarity and Proportionality in the Treaties. Finally, the possibility to go beyond the conferral of competences will be proposed (questionnaire 10).

It is time for the EU institutions to 'walk the talk' when referring to a new Europe addressing citizens' needs for social inclusion, sustainable growth and democratic participation. We just made the first step. Let us move forward!

of 24

Foreign Policy and External Action

(Title V TEU and Part V TFEU)

The EU has always been accused of being an economic giant and a dwarf in foreign policy. It was assumed that the Lisbon Treaty would have overcome this problem, by increasing European actorness through the creation of new bodies. Nowadays, it is evident that even though the EU is not a dwarf anymore, it keeps being a small actor with rickets problems.

1. The Articles concerning Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) as well as Declarations 13 and 14 in annex to the Lisbon Treaty underline the pre-eminence of Member States in the elaboration and application of their own foreign, security and defence policies. Do you not feel that such statements do undermine the concept itself of determining a EU Common foreign, security and defence policy?

2. Article 21 TEU lists EU foreign and external actions’ objectives. Do you consider the list satisfactory or would you like to modify it by adding more objectives? Do you not see this list as a limit to EU foreign action, especially in the framework of trade policy?

3. At the same time, Article 21 TEU identifies the three actors that are supposed to ensure EU external action coherence and consistency: the Council, the Commission and the High Representative. Do you not think that three different actors are rather an obstacle than an advantage in ensuring a coherent and consistent EU external policy?

4. According to Article 22 TEU, on the basis of the principles and objectives set out in Article 21, the European Council shall identify the strategic interests and objectives of the Union. Do you consider it is appropriate to allow an intergovernmental body such as the European Council to identify EU strategic interest and objectives?

5. In this respect, in which area of the CFSP do you think intergovernmentalism should be the basic principle? In which sector would you instead identify an increased role for the European Parliament? If in democracies foreign policy is defined by the government, this policy acquires the necessary support through its approval by the Parliament. Do you not believe that even the European foreign policy should get the support and be subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament?

of 24

6. Although promoting a progressive convergence of Member States’ foreign policies and requiring, at the same time, to Member States solidarity and spirit of loyalty, according to the Treaty decisions are taken through unanimity. Do you not believe this is a contradiction?

7. One of Lisbon Treaty’s novelty is the creation of the role of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Article 18 TEU). By referring to Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU, it can be noted that the High Representative informs, consults, coordinates, makes proposals, chairs, executes but ultimately he/she never takes decisions. Moreover, he/she shares his/her competences with other actors (such as the Commission and the Council). Therefore, what comes out is an institutional figure with no proper role. Do you not believe the Treaty should confer greater decision-making powers to the High Representative?

8. Article 27 TEU establishes that the High Representative relies on a European External Action Service (EEAS). In your opinion, should the Treaty confer the EEAS the rank of European Institution and consider it as key in elaborating and implementing CFSP?

9. Article 35 TEU defines the role of EU Delegations only referring to the cooperation between EU Delegations and Member States’ diplomatic and consular missions. Do you not believe it would be necessary to enhance the role of EU Delegations by defining their pre-eminence, especially within the framework of EU representation to International Organisations?

10. Section 2 of Chapter 2 of Title V TEU refers to CFSP. In particular, Article 42 paragraph 2 includes the progressive framing of a Common defence policy. Do you not think that the Treaty should directly identify and establish a European Common defence policy rather than encouraging its progressive framing?

11. Articles 42 and 46 TEU identify multinational forces and mention the opportunity to create permanent structured cooperations in the area of defence. Do you believe such instruments are sufficient in order to improve integration, and most of all do you not think that these cooperations between national military forces and on multiple levels will end up by distracting the EU from its final objective of a common defence?

12. Article 42 paragraph 7 TEU introduces the clause of collective defence among EU Member States. Such clause does not prejudice the neutrality of some Member States as well as the participation of others to NATO. Do you not think that such limitations are contradicting the collective defence clause as well as the idea of a common defence policy? Do you not think that the creation of a common military force should produce a discussion focused on the participation of some Member States to NATO?

13. Do you believe intergovernmentalism represents the best system for the definition of a Common defence policy? If so, should a central role of National Parliaments or of an inter-parliamentary network not be identified? In case the intergovernmental system was not

of 24

defined as the best, which institutions should deal with the Common foreign security policy? Is the creation of a European Defence Ministry foreseen? And most of all which role do you foresee for the European Parliament?

14. Article 45 on the European Defence Agency does not seem providing this agency with the adequate instruments to solve EU military capacity problems. According to you, should such powers be reinforced? And most of all, why armaments are not included in the European single market?

15. Part V of the TFEU deals with EU’s External Action, whereas Title V TEU defines general provisions related to the EU’s External as well as specific provisions related to CFSP. Do you not believe that such a distinction generates inconsistency in CFSP’s definition/elaboration? Above all, should all actions related to foreign policy be dealt with using the same procedures?

16. With reference to Title I Part V TFEU, do you not think that the ordinary legislative procedure should apply to all sectors of the Common Commercial Policy, therefore avoiding the implementation of unanimity?

17. Development cooperation policies (Chapter I Title III, Part V TEU) and Humanitarian Aid policies (Chapter III, Title III, Part V TFEU) are listed among the shared competences subject to derogation (Article 4 par.4 TFEU). Do you believe that the pursuit of these competences might be more effective if included in a different framework, for example among the exclusive competence of the Union? In order to avoid duplication of development cooperation and humanitarian aid policies between the European and national level, would management of these policies at European level as an exclusive competence not be more effective?

18. Considering Title V Part V TFEU on the international agreements, would not be necessary to extend the consent of the European Parliament to all agreements concluded by the Union?

of 24

Policies on Border Checks, Asylum and

Immigration (Articles 77-80 TFEU)

It is clear how the public opinion is highly concerned by the issue of the immigration. However we do believe that the immigration should be considered as an opportunity not only for the Union but also for its neighborhood. A common policy which focuses on the immigration turns out to have a high importance for the Union and it should be inserted between the key areas of its policy, especially in respect of its neighborhood, namely the South Mediterranean countries and Eastern Europe.

1. The Article 67 TFEU states that the Union constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. Do you not consider this provision restricting a stronger integration in this field?

2. According to the Article 68 TFEU the European Council defines the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice. Do you not think that this role of the European Council prejudices the prospect of a stronger communitarization of this area? Would you agree if the European Commission has the monopoly of initiative in this respect? What role for the European Parliament?

3. The Article 77 TFEU concerns the borders of the Union; the Paragraph 1 of the same article states that the Union shall develop a policy in this area. Do you agree to replace the verb “to develop” with the verb “to determine” or “to establish”?

4. This policy is included between the shared competences of the Union. In your opinion, the control of the external borders should not be included between the exclusive competences of the Union? Moreover, what should be the final objectives of this policy in the light of this new competence?

5. The Article 77 Paragraph 1 Letter C identifies the progressive implementation of an integrated system for the management of the external borders. Frontex was created following this perspective. Do you not feel that the competences of Frontex should be increased? Would you agree if Frontex shall evolve into a European corps of border guards?

6. What is your opinion on the Article 77 Paragraph 4?

7. The Article 78 TFEU concerns the Asylum Policy. The Paragraph 1 of the same article states that the Union shall develop a policy in this area. Do you agree to replace the verb “to develop” with the verb “to determine” or “to establish”?

of 24

8. This policy is included between the shared competences of the Union. In your opinion the Asylum policy should not be included between the exclusive competences of the Union? Moreover, what should be the final objectives of this policy in the light of this new competence?

9. The Article 78 TFEU calls for the elaboration of a uniform status of asylum for the nationals of third countries, in the area of subsidiary protection, but not for displaced persons in the event of a massive inflow. Why?

10. Do you not consider it appropriate the establishment of a European Agency for the Asylum, in order to increase the cooperation in this area or to directly manage the European Policy of the Asylum?

11. Following this perspective, what competences for the European Agency for the Asylum so as to ensure the operability of such European Policy?

12. What is your opinion on the Article 78 Paragraph 3?

13. The Article 79 TFEU concerns the Common Policy for the Immigration. The Paragraph 1 of the same Article states that the Union shall develop a policy in this area. Do you agree to replace the verb “to develop” with the verb “to determine” or “to establish”?

14. This policy is included between the shared competences of the Union. In your opinion the Common Policy for the Immigration should not be included between the exclusive competences of the Union? Moreover, what should be the final objectives of this policy in the light of this new competence?

15. The Article 79 Paragraph 4 establishes a supporting competence of the Union with respect to the nationals of third countries legally residing in the territories of the Member States. Do you not agree that this competence is too limited? Moreover, do you not believe that the laws concerning this area should be harmonized?

16. The Article 79 Paragraph 5 determines that the Member States have the power to establish the flows of nationals of third countries in their respective territories. Do you not think that this Paragraph is in contrast with the objective of achieving a European Immigration Policy?

17. The Article 79 Paragraph 3 introduces the “Agreements for the Readmission” which have raised many critics from the European public opinion. What is your opinion on this matter?

18. The Article 80 sets the principles at the base of these three Policies. Do you not consider appropriate to list these principles in the first Paragraph of the Articles 77-78-79?

of 24

Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters

(Articles 82 -86 TFEU)

In his presentation of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing claims that finally the Union will have the two founding elements at the base of the common living of people, namely the currency and the justice. The speech of Giscard d’Estaing does not seem to have taken a hold on the European leaders. However the area of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters results central when facing transnational crimes. We are caught by the paradox that the transnational crimes have unified Europe, before that Europe will be able to adopt common instruments to fight such crimes.

1. The Article 67 TFEU states that the Union constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. Do you not consider this provision restricting a stronger integration in this field?

2. According to the Article 68 TFEU the European Council defines the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice. Do you not think that this role of the European Council prejudices the prospect of a stronger communitarization in this area? Would you agree if the European Commission has the monopoly of initiative in this respect? What role for the European Parliament?

3. The competence in Judicial Matters is included between the shared competences of the Union. In your opinion, this competence should not be included between the exclusive competences of the Union? Moreover, what should be the final objectives of this policy in the light of this new competence?

4. The Article 82 Paragraph 1 identifies the fundamental principle of this cooperation in the mutual recognition of the verdicts and includes a rapprochement of the different national laws. Do you not consider more appropriate to replace “rapprochement” with “harmonization”?

5. The Article 82 Paragraph 1 Letter C introduces the formation of magistrates and judicial personnel. In your opinion, the Union should establish the framework for the education and formation of a European corps of magistrates?

6. The Articles of the Title 4, concerning the judicial cooperation in criminal matters, underline several times the need to preserve the peculiar characteristics of the different national law systems. Considering that the harmonization of the laws in this sector is desirable, do you

of 24

not feel that the intent to preserve the national differences is a limitation to such harmonization?

7. In this Title, in several sectors we can identify the “acceleration” clauses, the clause of “break” and clause of “emergency break”, the special procedure and requests for unanimity. Do you not consider a contradiction such appeal to intergovernamentalism within a shared competence? Do you not think that this could be a limitation to the action of the Union, making it more inefficient?

8. The Article 83 Paragraph 1 states that the Union may establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension, by listing also the areas of action. Do you not consider necessary a stronger harmonization in this sector? Do you not feel that the list of the areas of actions should be more exhaustive? Which areas would you like to be included into the list?

9. Referring to the Article 84, do you agree that it could be more appropriate to harmonize the laws in the crime prevention? What do you think if we include a common rule against the association of mafia?

10. The Article 85 defines the scope of EuroJust. Would you agree if EuroJust competences shall be strengthened? For example, EuroJust should not have the ability to initiate criminal investigation on its own initiative? Should Eurojust be enabled to oversee the future investigative and operative activities of EuroPol?

11. The Article 86 states that the Council may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust, in order to combat only crimes of financial interest. Do you not consider this reductive? Would you agree if the European Public Prosecutor’s Office will deal with all the transnational crimes? EuroPol should not be subject to the will of the European Prosecutor?

12. In addition, returning to Article 86, the Treaty should not directly establish a European Public Prosecutor, rather than giving the Council the opportunity to do so?

13. The establishment of a European Prosecutor, in his opinion should not determine the creation of a so-called European Indictments in charge of supervising the preparatory phase and of the indictment? What about the creation of a criminal chamber within the Court of Justice?

of 24

Economic and Monetary Policy

(Title VIII TFEU, Artt. 119 – 144)

It is clear that the Economic and Monetary Policy assumes a key role anprominence within the Union, both in the preservation of its internal balance and in ensuring to the Union a favorable and internal economic growth, sustainable and long lasting. Nowadays, however, it is increasing only the representative role of the monetary policy, alone. For this reason it has become necessary a stronger integration in the sector of the economic policy and moreover a better definition of economic and monetary governance, both internal and external to the Union.

1. The Article 120 TFEU states that the Member States shall conduct their economic policies

with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union (as defined in Article 3 TEU) Although Article 121 continues emphasizing the common interest of the national political economies, these are coordinated within the intergovernmental system of the Council. Do you not believe that there should be a convergence of national policies in order to define a single European economic policy?

2. In this field, which European Institution should be responsible for the definition of a Common Economic Policy? Do you believe it could be appropriate the involvement of the European Parliament in the decision-making process? Would it not be appropriate to include the economic policy between the competences of the Union?

3. Regarding the economic policy of the Union, would you consider appropriate the provision in the treaty of a Super Economy Commissioner, with decision-making powers and capable of initiative?

4. The Article 123 prohibits to the European Central Bank to grant overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility in favor of Union institutions as well central and local institution of the Member States. The same Article prohibits also the direct purchase of the debt instruments of these institutions. Do you not believe that, in light of the recent events, it should be more appropriate to include a clause of solidarity between the Member States and to enable the European Central Bank to act as lender of last resort? The ECB should not be responsible for assisting and possibly support the Member States that are in a temporary crisis for their debts? In your opinion, this new role for the ECB should be supported by the creation of European government bonds?

5. The Article 125 states that the Union is not liable for or does not assume the commitments of central governments, regional or local authorities. In this respect, do you not feel more appropriate a correct revision of this article, by including a clause of solidarity enabling the

of 24

Union to assist the Member States in financial difficulty, when this becomes necessary in order to maintain the stability of the same Union?

6. It is clear that depressive economic reforms following as objective the austerity in countries with financial difficulty do not facilitate their economic recovery, but rather are likely to destabilize the entire European economic system. In your opinion, which systemic tools should be adopted by the Union to support its members in economic difficulty, and so stabilize the European economy by promoting the economic development?

7. The Chapter 2 of the Title VIII TFEU focuses particularly on the monetary policy. The Article 127 Paragraph 1 states that the primary objective of the European System of Central Banks shall be to maintain the price stability. Do you not consider this objective a limitation and that it should be supplemented with resolutions supporting an economic growth more social and competitive?

8. Referring to the document of October 12, 2012 presented by President Van Rompuy and focused on expanding and consolidating the EMU, do you not see the need for the integration within the ECB of an oversight body of the entire banking system present in the euro zone? Do you think that this would require a revision of the Treaty?

9. Considering the involvement supported by the monetary policy at the international level, do you not consider appropriate to identify within the Treaty who represents the monetary policy of the Union at the international level?

10. In your view, a common economic policy of the 27 Member States, and a monetary policy of the Euro Zone appear to be incompatible? In this respect, these two common policies should be pursued with the creation of a single European budget, or we should distinguish between the budget for the Euro Zone (in support of national public debt: stabilizing function) and budget of the Union (in support of common economic, research, environment and industrial policies: allocative function). In your opinion, which of the two budgets should receive the redistributive function?

11. Do you consider the creation of a common fiscal policy an adequate response to imbalances emerged within the Union (see surplus economies VS deficit economies)? In your view, a common fiscal policy should be part of which area of competences?

12. Which European Institution should be involved in the definition of a Common Fiscal Policy? And what role for the European Parliament and the national parliaments? With which procedures?

of 24

Social Policy (Articles 151-161 TFEU)

The EU and, most of all, its single market, are associated with a liberal version of a mere free trade area where there is no space for genuine European social policy’s objectives. In the current economic crisis situation the Union must preserve, even through reforms, its welfare state system which still is a reference point worldwide. Europe must re-discover its social vocation and develop a coherent policy, which protects and sustains its citizens.

1. Title X TFEU deals with social policy. According to Article 4 TFEU such a policy is part of

shared competences. However, the framework of such a title is limited, and in many areas unanimity is still used by the Council. Do you not think the framework of action of Title X TFEU is limited? Should such title rather include the whole social policy–related areas? And should it not be established that all decisions in this matter must be taken by using ordinary legislative procedure?

2. Do you believe shared competence represents the best legal framework to regulate social policy at EU level? Alternatively, within which competence should title X TFEU be included?

3. The previous questions bring to the central issue concerning Title X TFEU: do you not believe that a real European social policy should be created?

4. Article 151 TFEU establishes the objectives of a European social policy. Do you believe they are a bit too reductive? In your opinion, which objectives should be included? Do you not think some objectives, like the protection of the European social model, the fight against job insecurity and the reaching of full employment, should be included instead of a generic high and lasting occupational level?

5. What do you think about third indent of art. 151 TFEU? Would you agree if the harmonization of social systems and Member States’ laws are part of Union competences?

6. Art. 152 TFEU mentions the role of social parts and the tripartite social summit. Should we give a more significant role in this area to such summit?

7. Do you not believe that the role of the European Economic and Social Committee in the framework of the European social policy should be reinforced? Which role should it have?

8. Article 153 TFEU lists the sectors where ‘the Union shall support and complement the activities of the Member States’. At the same time Article 156 TFEU identifies the subjects where ‘the Commission shall encourage cooperation between the Member States and facilitate the coordination of their action’. Should not the Union, and specifically the

of 24

European institutions, have a more central role in the areas identified by Articles 153 and 156 TFEU? In particular, should not the EU define the general framework of those areas and use the ordinary legislative procedure to adopt actions within those areas? And, consequently should not the Union pursue the harmonization of legislations in these areas?

9. Should not the Union legislate on sensitive topics for the European citizens, such as the creation of a guaranteed minimum income at European level (citizens' income) and the definition of adequate instruments to fight against job insecurity?

10. Amongst the Union’s competences, should not the definition of a social European system be central?

of 24

Education, Vocational Training, Youth and Sport

(Articles 165-166 TFEU) Taking into account Lisbon strategy’s objective to establish a knowledge-based economy,

education as well as vocational training and youth should represent the key elements to base any further EU action on in order to achieve the above-mentioned objective. For this reason, should a revision of Articles 165 and 166 TFEU as well as Article 6 TFEU be envisaged?

1. Should education, vocational training, youth and sport be regulated according to Article 6 TFEU on supporting competences? Should wide European programs supporting youth mobility such as Socrates be carried out within the framework of either a shared or an exclusive competence?

2. Considering education, do you not think that the Union should define the rules of a genuine European education system by replacing the intergovernmental Bologna Process while respecting at the same time Member States’ cultural diversity and autonomy in this field?Which objectives should drive such a European education policy? Would you agree to include the following objectives: multilingualism; a shared diversity-based European culture; a common European perspective supported by vocational training mobility; the battle against early school leaving; rules and actions ensuring social inclusion among vulnerable groups such as immigrants?

3. Should youth participation to Union’s democratic life be a key goal of a European education system? In particular, should the Treaty envisage such a European education system as a key player in defining and promoting a European active citizenship?

4. Should a single Article about sport by envisaged? Would you agree to establish a shared competence for this sector? And consequently, which objectives should drive EU actions in this policy?

5. Referring to vocational training, do you not think that the Treaty should safeguard the right of young people to have access to a qualified and protected vocational training system? Should the Union define a European framework to protect the right of young generations to have access to work?

6. Considering youth mobility importance within the labour market as well as a future genuine European labour market, do you not think the EU should protect and guarantee such a mobility?

of 24

7. Which institutions should take part to the decision-making process within the field of education, vocational training, youth and sport?

8. Should the ordinary legislative procedure be used within this field?

of 24

Industry (Art. 173 TFEU)

The economic and financial crisis has brought the attention back to the necessity of a strong, diversified and competitive European industrial sector able to ensure competitiveness, growth and occupation to Europe. The European Commission repeatedly supported the implementation of a genuine common industrial policy aiming at strengthening European economy worldwide. However industry falls into supporting competences as defined by art. 6 TFEU. According to the above-mentioned Article, the Union carries out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States.

1. Taking into account its key role and external dimension, should not the industry policy be included within EU’s shared competences?

2. Should Article 173 TFEU mention the necessity of a common industrial policy as it was the case for environmental and research policies?

3. Referring to the previous question, should Article 173 first indent, state: the Union establishes a Common industrial policy?

4. Assuming industry as a necessary European policy, which principles and objectives should it be based on? For example, should industrial policy refer to a ‘free and competitive social market economy’?

5. Which European institutions should be part of the decision-making process within the field of industrial policy? Should not be appropriate to use the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’? Should an ad hoc Committee as in the case of the Tripartite Committee for employment be set up?

6. Should industrial policy strategic objectives be directly mentioned in the Treaties or should they be elaborated by European institutions? In the latter case, which institution (the European Commission or the European Council) should be entitled to indicate such strategic objectives?

7. A genuine common industrial policy should refer to which strategic sectors? For ex.: automotive, engineering, aerospace, telecommunications/hardware sectors etc.

8. The European industrial policy enjoys an horizontal dimension since other policies are indirectly affected by it. Which coordination instruments should be envisaged to strengthen internal coherence?

of 24

9. Which European institution should supervise European industrial policy internal coherence?

10. Being aware of the important role of Member States in the industrial field, which role and competence for the national institutions?

of 24

Energy Policy (Art. 194 TFEU)

In 2007 the European Council adopted ‘an energy policy for Europe’ based on the following objectives: energy sustainability, security of energy supply and competitiveness. The main aim of the above-mentioned policy was to accelerate the transition towards a low carbon economy.

1. The Lisbon Treaty mentions the energy policy as a shared competence. Do you think the Treaty gives the Union the right/necessary tools to achieve the above-mentioned goals?

2. Taking into account the wording of Article 194 TFEU, should not the main characteristics of a common energy policy be described in the first paragraph? Which characteristics would you include in the above-mentioned paragraph?

3. Article 194, first paragraph lists EU’s goals in energy policy:

a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;

b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union;

c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and

d) promote the interconnection of energy networks.

Do you consider as sufficient/adequate the above-mentioned goals? Should an energy policy external goal be added? E.g.:

e) define and pursue a common foreign policy in the energy field.

4. Taking into account point (a), should not the Union define and ensure, rather than only ensure, the functioning of a common and competitive energy market?

5. Referring to point (b), should not the Union define/elaborate the necessary strategies as well as the procedures to ensure the security of energy supply of the Union, rather than in the Union?

6. Considering points (c) and (d), should the Union play a more proactive role in the energy policy? To achieve this goal, would not be better to replace the verb promote with define/elaborate?

7. Ensuring security of energy supply as described in point (b) has to be considered as a key element within the elaboration of the Common Commercial Policy. Do you not think it indirectly recalls the necessity of a clear common foreign policy in energy matters?

of 24

8. For this reason should point (b), as rephrased in question 5, be included within the Common Commercial Policy and consequently allow the EU to sign energy agreements with third countries?

9. Do you consider the wording of Article 194, first paragraph, second indent, as well as Article 194, third paragraph and Declaration N° 35 (in annex to TFEU), in contradiction with the definition of a common energy policy?

10. In the energy field, which should be the right division of competence between the Union and its Member states? In particular, should not the Union be allowed to determine the conditions for exploiting European energy sources?

11. In other words, should the Union have within its competence the right to exclusively manage the general structure of its-own energy supply as well as determine the conditions of exploiting its-own energy sources and elaborate the list among which choosing energy sources?

12. Or do you support the idea of a structured cooperation among Members states at European level?

13. Which strategic objectives should a common energy policy pursue?

14. Referring to the previous question, should the above-mentioned strategic objectives be directly included within the Treaties or should they be defined by European institutions? If institutions should be involved, which actor/s should define such strategic objectives?

of 24

Values, Competences and Principles of Conferral,

Subsidiarity and Proportionality (Articles 3-5 TEU,

Articles 2-6 TFEU, Protocol 2)

The previous discussion on some EU sensitive policies indirectly puts into question the division of competences as well as the role of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as defined in the Lisbon Treaty. Such division of competences might undermine the capacity of the EU to pursue its objectives. Thus, do you believe that the category of competences should be revised in order to allow the EU to act more efficiently and consistently in the above-mentioned policies and pursue its objectives?

1. Article 3 TEU mentions a wide range of EU values as well as objectives. The list seems to reflect EU policies as defined in both TEU and TFEU which, however, are quite limited in their scope. Do you not think it is a quite evident contradiction? How to solve it?

2. Is such a list desirable? Do you not think that the list paradoxically refers to wide objectives, but very limited in their actual scope? In your personal opinion, do you not think that such a long list with quite specific objectives limits the scope of the Union?

3. Thus, should Article 3 TEU be deleted? Notably the list and paragraph 6 which limits the EU in pursuing its objectives?

4. If not, which values and objectives should Article 3 TEU refer to?

5. Do you think the division of competences as defined in Articles 2-6 TFEU represents a valuable tool for the EU to promote its values and to achieve its objectives? Do you not believe that there is a contradiction between the wide spectrum of EU values and objectives and the kind of competences the Union has at its disposal?

6. Articles 2-6 TFEU describe a wide range of competences, notably:

a. Exclusive competence;

b. Shared competence;

c. Derogatory shared competence (Research, Technological Development and Space; Development Cooperation and humanitarian Aid);

d. Ad hoc competence referring to coordination of economic and employment policies; and CFSP;

of 24

e. Supporting competence according to which the Union can carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States.

Why such a fragmentation? Does it not prevent the EU from acting efficiently?

7. Should a competence rationalisation be desirable? In particular, should only two different type of competence, mainly exclusive and shared competences, be foreseen?

8. Taking into account Article 3 TFEU, which policies should be listed among EU's exclusive competence?

9. Referring to Article 4 TFEU, should derogatory shared competence be transformed into shared competence and consequently to lose its particular nature?

10. Do you find satisfactory the list of policies referring to shared competence? Which policies should be added to the list?

11. Article 5 TFEU refers to two ad hoc competences, namely coordination of economic and employment policies. Should such article be deleted and two specific Common economic and employment policies be foreseen? Which competence should regulate the Common economic and employment policies?

12. Do you think the policies list referring to supporting competence is satisfactory? Which policies should be added to the list? Should supporting competence be transformed in shared competence?

13. Which competence (exclusive, shared) should regulate CFSP and CSDP?

14. In case only exclusive and shared competences are identified by the Treaties, should a "passerelle clause" transforming shared competences into exclusive ones with a Council's qualified majority vote be foreseen?

15. What is your opinion on the principles of conferral and of subsidiarity, as stated in the Article 5 TEU? In terms of actorness, are these two principles a sufficient source of legitimacy in the action of the Union? Do you not feel that the action of the Union could be undermined by the principle of Conferral, as its action is limited not only by the green light of the Member States, but is also limited in its scope?

16. In light of the new International environment (spring revolutions in the Middle East, Economic Crisis etc.) would you agree in a revision of the Article 5 TEU, considering the need of a stronger integration of the European Union and in front of a fervent desire of the EU actorness?

17. In particular, should the principle of conferral be revised, widened, limited or deleted? In the latter case what principle should the EU refer to when acting?

of 24

18. Moreover, should Union competences be governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as mentioned in Art 3 TEU and defined in Protocol n. 2? Should the above-mentioned principles be revised, widened, limited or deleted? In the latter case what principles should the EU refer to when acting?

of 24

The Principle of Conferral

(Article 5 § 1TEU and Articles 2-6 TFEU)

Today the competences of the EU are limited by the principle of conferral (TEU Art. 5 § 1 and TFEU Art. 2 to 6). Member States remain in a Westphalian conception of sovereignty i.e. the supreme power recognized to a state, which implies the exclusive jurisdiction over a national territory and its independence in the international order where it is only limited by its own commitments. The raison d’être of sovereignty is to promote peace and well-being of the people.

Today Member States recognize – rather reluctantly but implicitly – that the exercise of their sovereignty may require being exercised together within the EU. But they delineate carefully the areas of competence in which it is needed and set very restrictive applicable rules that are defined specifically and distinctly for each of the areas concerned.

1. As the Union of the European Member States is also established to promote peace and well being of all their peoples (Article 2 TEU), do you not think that this Union must also hold the supreme power to achieve this objective and therefore be authorized to act in all areas of competence recognized to a sovereign state?

2. As the Union of the European Member States must also respect their equality and national identity (TEU Art. 4 § 2) – i.e. their sovereignty – do you not think that, instead of the areas in which the Union is competent, it is only the nature of its action that should be restricted and not the areas in which it could act?

3. Therefore do you think that the EU should act in all domains of competences held by a Member State, but only by a legal act that complies with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and provided it is approved by the Council on the one hand and European Parliament on the other?

The underlying idea is that each Member State can better promote peace and well-being of their people if they act together through their Union than if they act separately and independently. Therefore, it is necessary that their Union holds the same supreme power as each one of them, but could only act by legislations that respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

In other words, the Union would be allowed to act only by legal acts that conform to these two principles and provided that the Council and European Parliament recognize that these two principles are respected. As for national parliaments, they retain the power to challenge the respect of these principles before the European Court of Justice.

Alberto LAMPASONA, Alessandro MANGHISI and Philippe D. GROSJEAN On behalf of the Permanent Forum of European civil society November 24, 2012

questionnaire on european policies

Documents

european policies

european citizens

v tfeu

european convention

european societal compact

social policy articles

european electoral campaign

inclusive european union