THE EUROPEAN UNION'S INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

                                            Report of the Consultation held in Brussels
                                                    on 22/23 February 1996

                     AUTOR : European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society
 
 

     Introduction
     Discussions of the Consultation
     Annex A - Participants
 
 
 
 

1. Introduction

On 22 and 23 February 1996, the European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society invited its members to a consultation on the Intergovernmental
Conference convened by the European Union to consider the review of the Union Treaty. The consultation was held partly at the Centre Borchette in Brussels (by
kind invitation of the Commission of the European Community) and partly at the Ecumenical Centre. A list of those who participated is found in Annex A.

The Intergovernmental Conference begins on 29 March 1996 in Turin and is expected to last about twelve months during the Italian, Irish and Netherlands
presidencies of the Union. Its starting point is Article N of the Treaty on European Union of 1993 (the Maastricht Treaty) which saw the need to review the
operation of the Treaty in 1996. This need is reinforced by the need to adapt and develop the institutions to take account of future enlargements of the Union in the
light of existing and potential applications for membership from Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Rumania,
the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.

This report is intended to serve two purposes. First, it is a record of the consultation. It does not record everything that was said but it should give readers an idea of
the subjects tackled and the thoughts expressed by participants. Second, it is intended as a resource for members of EECCS as they participate, as some will, in
discussions with national governments and parliaments, or stimulate, as is hoped all will, debates both inside and outside the churches about the issues of the
intergovernmental conference.

The report does not follow the exact order of the consultation. It begins by outlining the contributions of the speakers who came from the institutions of the European
Union. To these outlines are added the questions which were raised by participants in the consultation. The second part outlines the main points which emerged from
the discussion of the consultation both in the plenary discussions and in the discussion of the three working groups.

The consultation did not result in a declaration and it was not an appropriate forum for the adoption of an EECCS position on the Intergovernmental Conference.

EECCS is grateful to a number of people who contributed to a worthwhile consultation:

     to the main speakers;
     to those who moderated the various sessions: Laurens Hogebrink, Keith Jenkins, Ploni Robbers-van Berkel, Norman Shanks, Jean-Pierre Thévenaz;
     to those who formed the panels on the responses of the churches (Gerhard Eibach, Urban Gibson and Michele Rigby) and on the vision of the future (Iriis
     Kivimäki, Jörg Thalmann and Solange Wydmusch);
     to the reporter of the responses of the churches, Jean-Pierre Thévenaz.
     to the animators of the working groups (Laurens Hogebrink, Heidrun Tempel and Philip Woods) and the rapporteurs (Norman Shanks, Jean-Pierre Thévenaz
     and Simone van der Zee)
     to the general rapporteur and reflector for the working groups, Marc Lenders.
     to the worship leader, Norman Shanks.
     to the team of interpreters provided by the Commission of the European Community.

[Contents]

2. Discussions of the Consultation

2.1 The Responses of the Churches

The consultation received a document which outlined the responses of churches to the consultation document circulated by EECCS to its members in March 1995.

In the discussion of this document a number of observations were made. There was a general regret that the responses had come entirely from Northern and North
Western Europe, with no responses from Southern Europe. Within this limited geographical area, there were a number of points of non-agreement and the document
could not itself be regarded as a common position of the churches.

It was also relatively easy for churches to express general principles regarding Kingdom values, but when it came to more precise questions about political institutions
and policies, agreement was less easy.

It was clear that the churches attached considerable importance to the social dimension of the European Union. The fact that the social protocol and agreement only
applied to fourteen member states was greatly regretted. The action taken by the European Union in tackling unemployment was seen as insufficient and more action
must be taken in the future.

Alongside church pleas for a Citizens' Europe, there was a suspicion that protectionism was creeping in and that there were distinctions between giving rights to "real"
Europeans while being ambiguous to others both resident in the European Union and living elsewhere.

There was a need for more capacity for action in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Mention was made of the need to strengthen non-military
models of conflict resolution. There was a general desire for strengthening the powers of the European Parliament and a belief that the Council of Ministers should be
more open to public scrutiny when it was acting on legislation.

It was important to ensure that fundamental human rights were protected within the framework of the European Union. The involvement of citizens was seen to be
lacking and there was no real content to European citizenship. It was difficult to mobilise citizens and to maintain their interest. In particular, public debate was
lacking. In some cases, the public debate was being distorted by the kind of information available in the media. Popular feeling about Europe was nourished by the
negative prejudices of the media.

Regarding the contribution of the churches to the public debate, it was noted that people in the churches could often be European in their church life (e.g. the
willingness to establish links between parishes in different countries) but viewed matters differently when it came to political questions.

2.2 The Sense of Direction

The European Union had its origins in a desire for peace and it had provided a framework in which there had been peace in Western Europe for fifty years - a
contrast with the time which had preceded this. The challenge of the present was to find a way of extending that peace concept in Europe. Imposing a state of
non-belligerence was not the same as creating peace. That had been the motivation of the original six members but there were questions about the extent to which
this had been shared by later adherents to the Union where the motivation was more economic. With further enlargements of the Union, the original motive could
become more blurred. To give effect to concepts such as peace required a willingness to share sovereignty.

Another challenge related to the diversity found in the member states and the importance of people not feeling alienated by the sharing of sovereignty. There was a
rich diversity of cultures in the member states. Would that be preserved? Did people in one part of the Union feel that people in other parts were part of the same
Europe? There was perhaps a fear of levelling down and losing something and if people were not able to overcome that fear, the possibility of developments were
very limited. The importance of meeting one another was stressed because it was in meeting others that one saw their value in relation to oneself and avoided falling
back into a self-defence of one's own culture and values. Here the principle of subsidiarity, properly understood, was a valuable help but a perfect judicial expression
of subsidiarity was not enough in itself to make subsidiarity work.

In turn, looking at others was a reminder of the global responsibilities of Europe. As well as looking at ourselves in relation to our own history, it was important to
look at the other parts of the world and our interaction with them. The principle of solidarity needed to be affirmed and we needed to avoid setting up a closed
system. If the world developed into three major competing blocs - Europe, North America, the Pacific Rim - what would happen to Africa, Latin America and large
parts of Asia? Could the European Union be a community of generosity?

Nonetheless, sometimes it was important to define frontiers in order to avoid a vagueness of concepts.

It was suggested that an important difference between European concepts and those of, for example, North America, was the different emphasis placed on the
balance between ideas of community (seen to be stronger in Europe) and individual liberty (seen as stronger in North America).

2.3 From Vision to Detail

Some of the work of the consultation took place in smaller working groups on

     Institutional Reform (including the third pillar of Co-operation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs;
     Social Cohesion;
     Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The reports from the working groups are set out in Annex C.

Marc Lenders, Study Secretary of EECCS, introduced this work in a plenary session and drew out the main themes of the working groups. The group on
institutional reform had acknowledged that, up to now, the issue had not attracted great interest in the churches. The group had underlined that the institutions should
be monitored for their capacity to promote justice. It had supported making the matters referred to in the Third Pillar subjects for the Community.

The working group on social cohesion had expressed its anger that the report of the Reflection Group had said so little on social issues in general and unemployment
in particular. The group had denounced the almost dogmatic approach of the Reflection Group with regard to competitiveness being "the key to the creation of jobs".
The group affirmed that employment could not be left to the ups and downs of the economy but had to be treated as a political issue.

Finally, the group on the Common Foreign and Security Policy had compared the way in which existing institutions had coped with standing foreign and security
during and after the Cold War and had come to the conclusion that the existing institutions were less well-placed and effective. This had led to a loss of credibility for
the European Union in the eyes of citizens. The group favoured bringing the Common Foreign and Security Policy ultimately under the First Pillar.

The discussion of the reports brought back the question of values given that one group had indicated that reform of the institutions should be related to the extent to
which they contributed to justice. The earlier discussion had made reference to concepts of responsibility and liberty, although the latter concept could easily
deteriorate into liberty for those who do well in our society with exclusion for others. There was a recognition that concepts of peace and reconciliation must also be
introduced into the discussion.

Much stress was put in the report of the Reflection group and elsewhere on the criterion of effectiveness. It was underlined in the discussion that effectiveness was
not something to be measured only quantitatively; it had a qualitative dimension also. Effectiveness was something which was important to citizens - it could make the
European Union acceptable to them. This was particularly true in relation to some of the questions - employment and the future of work, social exclusion and
environmental degradation - which were important to citizens. Effectiveness was also important in preparing for the new peace and justice project constituted by
enlargement of the European Union.

This focused on the potential tension between widening and deepening the Union. Could there be a common vision when there were varying speeds in the Union?
The conclusions of two of the working groups had shown more support for moving some issues from the intergovernmental second and third pillars of the Union into
the Community first pillar, more competences for the European Community and more majority voting in the Council of Ministers. These were demands for
deepening. The tension between widening and deepening could be accommodated if it was accepted that not every member state would arrive at the common goal
at the same time - provided that the common goal existed and was accepted.

At the end of the discussion a number of principles appeared to gain common acceptance:

(a) Churches should judge changes to the European Union institutions by the extent to which they contributed to justice, peace and reconciliation - values which were
at the origin of European integration. These values were as important as ensuring that the institutions were effective.

(b) It was regretted that the European Union Reflection Group which had prepared a report for the Intergovernmental Conference had not given more emphasis to
the social dimension, relating it principally to competivity. Further action was necessary on this point because unemployment and social exclusion were major
concerns of citizens. In particular the social dimension should be fully part of the Treaty for all members states and not a protocol for 14.

(c) Enlargement was supported, particularly in relation to countries in Central and Eastern Europe, this required a deepening of the Union. Although there was a
tension between enlargement and deepening, a balance could be obtained by allowing different countries to become involved in different aspects at varying speeds
on the strict condition that a common goal and common institutions were maintained.

(d) With a view to ensuring democracy, openness and judicial review, there should be moves towards making the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the
Co-operation on Justice and Home Affairs part of the Community structures rather than being matters for intergovernmental co-operation. It might not be possible to
do this immediately but there should be clear steps in that direction: such as a tandem approach between Commission and Council in analysis and planning for the
Common Foreign and Security Policy and moving questions of visa, asylum and immigration policy from the intergovernmental Co-operation on Judicial and Home
Affairs matters to the Community pillar.

(e) To address the concerns of citizens and to protect the diversity present in member states, it was also important to implement more fully the principles of shared
sovereignty and subsidiarity (the taking of different decisions at the most appropriate levels as close as possible to citizens). A simplification of procedures, a wider
role for the European Parliament, public operation for legislative questions in the Council of Ministers and qualified majority voting as the general rule were important
for democracy as well as for making the institutions more effective with a view to enlargement.

The consultation closed on a note of encouraging members of EECCS in member states of the European Union to enter, where possible, into discussion with national
governments and parliaments on the direction of the Intergovernmental Conference and to stimulate debate on the issues both within the churches and beyond.

[Contents]
 

                                                                                                                   ANNEX A
 
 

                                                       PARTICIPANTS

* Member of the EECCS Advisory Committee on Political and Economic Union

     Emanuel Adamakis Ecumenical Patriarchate
     Ulrike Atkins Evangelical Church in Germany
     Martin Bax Association of WCC-related Development Agencies in Europe (APRODEV)
     Véronique Dessart EECCS Staff
     Gerhard Eibach Evangelical Church in Germany
     Frank-Dieter Fischbach Evangelical Church in Germany
     Richard Fischer Executive Secretary (Strasbourg) of EECCS
     Urban Gibson Christian Council of Sweden
     *Laurens Hogebrink Council of Churches in the Netherlands
     Alastair Hulbert Executive Secretary (Brussels) of EECCS
     *Fiona Hulbert Ecumenical Forum of European Christian Women
     Keith Jenkins General Secretary of EECCS
     Iiris Kivimäki Ecumenical Forum of European Christian Women
     Marc Lenders Study Secretary of EECCS
     Stefan Lunte Commission of Catholic Bishops' Conferences in the European Union (COMECE)
     Gérard Markhoff French Protestant Federation
     *Primo Micheluzzi International Association for Christian Education
     Antoinette Panhuis United Protestant Church of Belgium
     Michelle Rigby Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland
     Ploni Robbers-van Berkel Council of Churches in the Netherlands
     Per-Axel Sahlberg Christian Council of Sweden
     Christine Savat European Conference of Justice and Peace Commissions
     *Norman Shanks Church of Scotland
     Patrick Surmont United Protestant Church of Belgium
     Heidrun Tempel Evangelical Church in Germany
     Jorg Thalmann Swiss Protestant Federation
     *Jean-Pierre Thévenaz Swiss Protestant Federation
     Charlotte Van Der Borght EECCS Staff
     Janny van der Molen Council of Churches in the Netherlands
     Simone Van Der Zee Council of Churches in the Netherlands
     *Philip Woods Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland
     Solange Wydmusch French Protestant Federation

FONTE : http://europa.eu.int/en/agenda/igc-home/instdoc/ngo/eeccen2.htm