SYNTHESIS OF THE POSITION OF MEMBER CHURCHES

                   THE EUROPEAN UNION'S INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

                                AUTOR :  European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society
 
 
 
 
 
 

In March 1995 EECCS sent a document containing a number of questions to its members about the European Union's coming Intergovernmental Conference. It
invited them to respond to such of these questions as they wished.

Detailed responses came from:

Ireland (Presbyterian Church in Ireland)(IR), Scotland (SC),

Germany (EKD Synod and its preparatory document)(D)

Länder: Baden (BN), Hessen-Nassau (HN), Sachsen (SN);

Netherlands (NL); Sweden (S); Switzerland (CH).

Letters were received from England (Church of England staff paper); France; Kairos Europa.

This paper attempts to summarise the responses. In each section the questions posed in the EECCS document are set out followed by the summary of the responses
received.

Fundamental Vision

The churches must put the stress on history, meaning, direction, therefore on shalom, reconciliation and possible new starts as well as on responsibility towards other
continents (NL;F). And they must not leave everything solely to the politicians in their concrete technical decisions (CH).

Going beyond Europe of trade and economics (D, synod; E; NL; IR: SC). Objectives of security, prosperity, well-being, cultural openness and tolerance; what new
symbol of reconciliation will be put forward at Graz in 1997, after the "common European house" in Basel in 1989? (E)

Qualitative growth, social stability and supranational security, unity, peace and justice, with parliamentary control and the rule of law, - but with a role for the
individual, the family and private organisations with priority over any state action ("subsidiarity" in the German sense)(D, synod; HN).

Fundamental principles: democracy, rule of law, social solidarity, justice, protection of nature (HN). Fundamental human rights, minority rights, tolerance (BN).

Integrate policies (agriculture, economic, transport...) with a coherent plan for town and country planning, guaranteeing that policies remain compatible with the
human, the social, the environment, future generations and the third world (D, synod, position on the rural world).

Creation of a real European identity, supported by European media, but with democratic control mechanisms and separation of powers to limit executive power in
the Union, including a real case law based on Parliamentary work (S).

Openness to states which are not members and to the rest of the world both in economic matters and security and an active policy of enlargement of the Union (NL).

Principles of Federalism and Subsidiarity

Questions to the Churches:

Do the members of EECCS generally accept the principle that the European Union should be built on the principles of federalism and subsidiarity?

How would they wish to see this principle modified or enlarged?

What alternative principles would they propose?

Principles generally approved - but care with federalism, which must not further erode national sovereignty (IR), - on the other hand, some transfers of sovereignty
are necessary to a federation of nation states!(NL)

And be careful with the definitions of subsidiarity, too limited to relations between states and not sufficiently applied to regional and social diversity! (S; D; BN; CH).
Subsidiarity also implies a principle of solidarity in social policy (D).

Democratisation and the Communitarian Principle

Question to the Churches

Do you favour the extension of the communitarian principle at the expense of national sovereignty e.g. in the fields of the Common Foreign and Security
Policy and the Co-operation on Justice and Home Affairs matters?Do you consider that the European Parliament should have the right to initiate
legislation if the Commission declines to do so?

Do you consider that it is (a) possible (b) desirable to arrive at a common constitutional arrangement for the involvement of national parliaments in
Community/Union processes?

Do you consider that there should be a more open access to information in the institutions? What should be the limits to such access?

Do you consider that the Council of Ministers should meet in public when enacting legislation?

Yes (SC) but that implies a real responsibility on the part of citizens, another relationship between the authorities and the people (D; CH). - Yes, but Europe is not
yet a people...(HN). - No to the extension of the communitarian principle (IR).
 
 

Foreign and Security Policy

Yes (BN; HN; SN; D, document; SC). Perhaps - but to carry out what policy? (F; CH) - No - or at least care...(IR).

A European Common Security Pact would be a realistic objective, and it would, in particular, imply a rejection of the arms trade. (D, document; S).

Justice and Home Affairs

Yes (SN), but only in face of organised crime (BN). Yes to a common migration policy (D) -No, because the policies are not yet harmonised (HN).
 
 

European Parliament

Yes to the increase of its powers (SC), in the form of a right of initiative (D; BN; HN; SN; S; NL; IR).

- National Parliaments

Yes to a controlling role in relation to the Council of Ministers (HN; IR; NL). No (BN).
 
 

Information

Yes (D; BN; S; NL; SC; IR) - but there are no European media...(HN). Care in handling information and respect for confidentiality (IR).
 
 

Public Meeting of Council of Ministers

Yes (BN; SN; IR; SC; S). - No, rather a public debate before (HN).

Efficiency of Decisions: Majority Voting

Question to the Churches

Do you consider that there should be more or less majority voting in the Council of Ministers?

On what principles should the majority be defined?

Do you consider that there are issues for which unanimous decisions should be required and, if so, which?

Should the number of members of the EC Commission be reduced and, if so, should there continue to be one for each country?

Yes (BN; IR), on condition that small states are favoured with a substantial blocking minority according to a criterion which relates to population (HN; CH), - and
on condition of having variable majorities according to the subjects (SN). - But who will decide in the EU? Will the Council one day be a "government" controlled by
a people who can vote? (CH). Unanimity only in exceptional cases (D; BN), essentially on the admission of members and the Treaties (IR; NL), also specially on
military questions and economic sanctions (F).
 
 

Number of Commissioners

Yes to reduction (HN; BN; SC). - No (S).

Is this a subject on which the churches should speak, and why?(NL)
 
 

Competences of the Union

Question to the Churches

Which issues do you consider should have a European Union level of decision making?

Which issues, if any, should be exclusively reserved to the member states?
 
 
 
 

Social Field

Yes to a common social base, founded on criteria of liberty, equality, fraternity and the social obligation of those with wealth (D; F; S; CH).

Policy dealing with questions of work, social security and economic policy (BN; SN; IR; S).

On the other hand, less common policy in agriculture (SN; S).

No common policy for internal affairs, security or matters of conscience - but for employment! (IR).
 
 

Other Policies

Currency, economic redistribution, ecology (SC).

Taxation on financial speculation and measures against fiscal paradises and for another international financial system (Kairos Europe)

Common policy for internal affairs and on regional questions (S).

Cultural exchanges (D; NL).

Integrated town and country planning for the regions (D).

Status of the churches (HN).

Third World development policy (F; D).
 
 

Citizens' Europe

Question to the Churches

Do you favour incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter into the Treaties?

Do you favour extending the right to be a candidate and/or to vote to regional and national elections in the country in which a citizen of the European
Union resides even when he or she is not a citizen of that country?

To what extent do you consider that Union citizens should have a right of access to information?

Do you consider that the right of residence and free movement should be extended to third country citizens lawfully resident in a member state?

Yes to voting rights for European foreigners (BN; HN; D), only at local level (NL; SN). No (IR).

Right of information: question not clear (BN) treated otherwise under 3 above.
 
 

Fundamental Rights

Yes to the European Human Rights Convention and the Social Charter of the Council of Europe (D; HN; SN; S; SC). No, not necessary...(IR).
 
 

Rights of Citizens of Third Countries

Yes (BN; S; SC), only the right to travel (NL; SN). No (IR; HN).
 
 

Council of the Regions as a Second Chamber

Question to the Churches:

Do you consider that the Committee of the Regions should develop into a second chamber of the European Parliament?

Yes (BN), yes or some other improvement (S). No (D; HN; S), for there should be other rights for regions (CH; NL)
 
 

Security and Defence

Question to the Churches:

Do you think that the European Union should have a defence component and should that be the Western European Union?

Yes (BN; HN; SN) - but with a European Security Pact (D), and only for keeping the peace without provocation, without arms trade, and with civil society (S). -
But will the instrument be really the Western European Union? (S; BN). No, UNO is sufficient...(SC). A specific consultation is needed on this subject (NL).
 
 

Official Languages

Question to the Churches

Would you accept a structure which had only six official languages of which your own language was not one?

All languages should remain "official" but yes to a reduction of the number of working languages (NL; BN; SC), only English at the end of the day (HN; SN; SC). -
No (S).
 
 

10 Treaty or Constitution?

Question to the Churches

Do you consider that the time is right for the possibility of a constitution of the European Union to be considered? If so, on what principles do you
consider it should be based?

Current European law could be given the form of a constitution so long as it was not extended (IR) or on condition of democratisation (S). - No, a treaty must
remain but must define fundamental rights (a constitution will be the ultimate objective) (D; BN; HN; SN). A further constitutional debate must be launched (NL), for
example by already allowing the people to vote on the Treaty (CH) as the European Parliament has suggested.

Jean-Pierre Thévenaz

February 1996

Original in French
 
 

                                                                                                                   ANNEX C

                                    REPORTS OF THE CONSULTATION WORKING GROUPS

Group on Institutional Reform

Why should churches be involved in the issue and what could be their contribution?

We agree about the necessity to tackle the issue. Churches can do more than politicians. They are in a position to point to the consequences of constitutional
reforms. What should be kept as a focus is the need to implement justice. Furthermore one should have to see in how far the proposed reforms are efficient with
regard to the enlargement.

The observation was made that there seems to be little attention on the part of the churches for the issue of institutional reform. This may be due to the complex
character of the issue: how then could we come to a concrete proposal?

Points which have been discussed:

We did not make a real clear-cut distinction between the points which the group wanted to raise in the plenary and the recommendations for the
Intergovernmental Conference. It seems that the deepening of the following points should be left to the EECCS Working Group on Political and Economic
Union.

The points are:

1. The third pillar should be brought within the competences of the EU institutions. Majority vote in the Council and a plain co-decision procedure for most matters in
the European Parliament.

2. The text of the treaty should be made more readable although not at the expense of the judicial accuracy of the text.

3. Access to as much information as possible but there may be in some cases a need for confidentiality: we think here especially of those matters related to the
second pillar.

4. Each country has the right to have one Commissioner. The Presidency of the Council of Ministers should be re-shuffled.

5. The new member states should have signed the European Convention on Human Rights.
 
 

Group on Social Cohesion
 
 

1 To discuss in plenary:

Refusal of the ideology of competitiveness and its one-sided praxis which remains blind to the social consequences.

Churches have to be ready to pay the price of fighting against poverty and exclusion.

The EU should be open to countries of Southern and Eastern Europe with regard to the financial implications of transfer of resources.

Policy is made up of goals and means and for that reason there is a need to proceed to a correct evaluation of the relation between economy and politics.
 
 

2 To the Intergovernmental Conference:

On the social protocol, structural funds and other matters related to the concept of cohesion

The social policy should encompass those living in exclusion and extend to non-workers.

There is to be a parallelism between social cohesion and monetary union: one should not await the negative consequences of monetary union before acting socially.

Civil society should be called as an actor to develop social cohesion.

The power of the state should be reinforced vis à vis the world economy.

Division among European states should be avoided, for instance: entering into competition.

Expressing the anger of citizens and give way to a prophetic voice of the Gospel.
 
 

3. What should the EECCS working group on Political and Economic Union take on board?

The negotiations on enlargement: what kind of cohesion; a new Common Agricultural Policy.

A plea for an industrial policy relating to over- and under-developed regions?

The Social Forum: what kind of dialogue?

Is there a need for a common economic policy?

Should we have to look to a new understanding of work? Activities instead of employment?

Fiscal policy as a way to extract social policy from being dependent more and more on the god or bad state of the market.
 
 

Group on Common Foreign and Security Policy

   1.An effective Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is fundamental to the credibility (and self-confidence) of the EU.
   2.The role of the churches vis à vis the consideration of the CFSP. There must be a sense of realism (realpolitik awareness), but to be valid it has to set long
     term objectives (the "long vision" thing). Thus the values focus is important (and the Reflection Groups's emphasis is ultimately on self-interest) - the goal of
     sharing of resources/fulness of life for all.
   3.Is the corollary of political integration/CFSP a European army (already there are signs of military co-operation - France/Germany; Germany/Netherlands,
     etc.) - difficult for limitation of sovereignty! (We did not go into the detailed options set out in the report of the Reflection Group.)
   4.After the break, we looked at some of the long standing foreign/security problems (cf German/French relations, Turkey, Russia, Balkans, Mediterranean,
     national minorities - how these were dealt with during the Cold War and how well they are being coped with now; the conclusion was that the present
     institutions are less well placed/effective and that the Intergovernmental Conference is unlikely to help, being concerned principally about points
     of detail.
   5.Another aim: ultimately bringing CFSP under the first pillar, with full democratic accountability, etc.
   6.Civil society (including the churches) has a role in building bridges (possibility of using EU funding programmes PHARE, TACIS more fully on the part of
     churches including CEC and WCC).

FONTE : http://europa.eu.int/en/agenda/igc-home/instdoc/ngo/eeccen1.htm