An EU closer to the people: What role for the Regions?

An EU closer to the people: What role for the Regions?

An EPC Dialogue was held in cooperation with the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK on “An EU Closer to the People: What Role for the Regions”? A question and answer session followed. This is not an official record of the proceedings and specific remarks are not necessarily attributable.

Hywel Ceri Jones, Chairman of The EPC’s Executive Board, opened the seminar by emphasising that The EPC was closely monitoring the Convention’s work on the regions and cooperating with the Economic and Social Research Council on decentralisation and devolution in the UK and the implications of that on the European stage.

He said much work in the meeting of experts earlier in the day had been concentrated on “the politics of the situation” – informed by careful examination of the situation in the German Laender, the Belgian regions and by the latest thinking in Scotland. The Convention’s work was now gaining momentum, with the emergence of reports from different working groups. But a question mark remained over the establishment of a working group on the “sub-Member State” level.

The morning’s debate had highlighted a clear distinction between the kinds of developments envisaged at EU level, and what should be happening in individual Member States. There was diversity in the various regional decision making machinery and even between the so-called constitutional regions. That diversity should now be mobilised, said Mr Jones, to bring the EU closer to the people: “Unless the local and regional levels are mobilised, the EU cannot, by definition, come closer to the people” he warned.

Summary of experts meeting

Charlie Jeffery, Director of the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, said the morning session had tackled three issues:

– the delineation of competences and how that impacts on the EU;

– the role of legislative regions

– subsidiarity.

However, there had been an absence of common ground among all three panellists: speakers from Germany, Belgium and the UK had each reflected the national policy debate, and it was apparent that efforts in the Convention by the Committee of the Regions to “build a position everyone can subscribe to” only demonstrated the Committee’s struggle to “hold the ring” in the current regional debate.

There was difficulty building coalitions of regions, thanks to a schizophrenic debate, characterised by two positions – “Let us in” and “Leave us alone.”

The strong regions, such as the German Laender and Flanders in Belgium, wanted to be let in to the EU decision-making processes, taking part in policy formulation at Member State level.

Mr Jeffery said that before the Maastricht Treaty, such regions felt they were equal partners with the European Parliament. But instead of a regional chamber evolving in the EU, they got a Committee of the Regions with a mixed membership and very limited remit, with no potent voice in the process. So as the limits of a let-us-in strategy became clear, the debate refocused towards strengthening the role of regions inside their own state legislatures.

Since the Amsterdam Treaty the focus had moved to restricting the regulatory scope of the EU, triggering the emergence of the “Leave-us-alone” philosophy.

In the German Laender, for instance, there was a growing shift away from an integrationist consensus, with further transfers of regional competences to the EU, and towards regional autonomy.

Delineation of competences

At Nice, this was put on the Future of Europe agenda by the German Laender. It is all about ring-fencing the regional role and the re-nationalisation of competences in agriculture and structu ral funds, with an autonomous right to appeal to the European Court of Justice.

The Role of Legislative Regions

There would be pre-legislative consultation, in which regions would be consulted before agreement in the college of Commissioners.

Subsidiarity

Mr Jeffery thought it likely that constitutional regions would move beyond consensus to focus on their specific interests. Those regions would work through the Committee of the Regions, but would always focus hardest on pressing Member State governments to represent their positions. In this way, they had a “back door” to the European Court of Justice. Their aim was to call the Commission more strongly to account and reign in the scope of EU regulation – with the “Leave us alone” strategy dominant.Keynote speech

Key-note speaker Karel De Gucht, Leader of the Flemish Liberal Party and representative of the Belgian Parliament on the Convention, said the role of regional and local authorities was key in the debate on the EU’s future because the way the EU was run had to reflect processes taking place within each Member State – a process of regionalisation with growing recognition of the functions and autonomy of various regional and local authorities.

Note should also be taken of the contribution which regional and local authorities may make to the basic objective of bringing the EU closer to its citizens. There had been a growing trend towards regionalisation for 20 years, but no common view about what “region” meant in political, legal or sociological terms. The Committee of the Regions, he said, was a “rather useless” institution within the EU framework – rather like the European Parliament was 20 years ago.

Regions with legislative powers

It was difficult to define the regional picture, but legislative regions have their own government, their own Parliament and adopt at least some legislation. They have a clear constitutional position and are key players in the domestic decision-making process. But their involvement in the EU policy process, converting directives into their own legislation, was largely unrecognised.

Nevertheless, the European integration process clearly affected the competence of such regions. Other regions and local authorities were not formally recognised at EU level at all, and played no part in EU decision-making. But it was vital that the Convention recognised the role of “sub-national entities”, even if Member States remained the focal point of the Union.

The EU had an interest in a direct link with all the relevant actors in the field of legislation – and at EU level, regions would not be denied the legislative competences they have at home. Equally, regions with no such domestic powers cannot be given those competences at EU level. The key issue was how to give legislative regions the appropriate status at legislative, executive and judicial levels within the EU.

The essential issues were:

On subsidiarity: in future treaties, the principle should be understood in a wide sense, covering all regions and their powers.

On participation in the Council and other decision-making bodies: regions having proper legislative power should be able to participate in the decision-making process of the EU, either by creating the possibility of “split votes” or by giving them a role in Commission drafting through consultation or other means.

(“Split votes”, Mr De Gucht explained, apply where regions such as Flanders and Wallonia with different views from the Belgian state as a whole do not currently have their voice heard in the Council at the moment.)

On the role of regional parliaments: This role should be clarified, with regional parliaments given scrutiny of EU legislation.

On the European Court of Justice: The Co nvention should study how legislative regions could intervene where a case concerns their field of competence:

On the Committee of the Regions: The mandate and remit of the Committee of the Regions should be developed and stated in the treaties, covering issues of local and regional self-government.

On the regional dimension of the Convention: The Convention must examine the role of the regional legislative authorities, possibly by setting up a working group which should look at wider questions relating to local and regional government.

Llibert Cuatrecasas, Secretary General for European Affairs, Generalite de Catalunya, said the question of regions had to be defined, with a new look at the distribution of competences between Member States and the legislative powers of regions. At the moment, he said, subsidiarity does not sufficiently take account of regions. The Convention must restructure the future EU with a clear division of power – legislative, executive and judicial.

The Commission has power to propose, but the system must be enhanced so that the Commission is obliged to hear the regions – particularly those with their own powers – before deciding on any piece of legislation that affects the powers of the regions. The point had already been reached where the Commission cannot refuse to hear a proposal from a group of important regions. Now, the Commission should be obliged to give a “reasoned opinion” if it decides not to act as requested by those regions.

Mr Cuatrecasas acknowledged that this would be difficult to establish, but the process should be easy to define. The regions of the EU are the Union’s “everyday reality”, and the Commission needed to understand the structures of power within individual Member States. Any proposed constitution flowing from the Convention had to be flexible and logical enough to resolve the issue of the distribution of competences and make the regional dimension “real”.

Xavier Gizard, Secretary General of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, also echoed the call to reinforce the regional role. This required resolution of the contradiction between a Union of Member States and an association of regions which have more and more responsibilities. He regretted the absence of a specific working group in the Convention taking account of the regional role, and hoped the promise of a plenary session on the issue would be kept.

If the regions did not find their place in the Convention proposals, the future of Europe and the constitutional Treaty would turn out more like a confederation of states along the Soviet system rather than a truly new step forward for Europe. He said a joint text from a group of associations representing regional interests across the EU made three key points:

1. The Treaty preamble must recognise that regions must be associated with the execution of European policies – the exact status depending on the constitutional role of a particular region.

2. The Committee of the Regions must be reinforced, including giving it rights to appeal to the European Court of Justice on regional matters.

3. The Treaty must strengthen the concept of “territorial cohesion.” There cannot be more power for the regions at Union level without more solidarity between regions.

Mr Gizard even suggested that if the role of the regions was overlooked in any future Treaty, one option was a “strike”, in which regions refused to play any part in the EU process, which would blatantly demonstrate that their role in implementing EU policies is vital.

Discussion

Convention working group

An open debate followed, led by Mr Jones who wondered where it mattered that a working group on the regions was in question and that it seemed there would only be one plenary meeting on the issue. This would surely make or dinary people feel entirely excluded – particularly bearing in mind that the whole Convention exercise was created to connect with citizens and increase transparency.

Mr De Gucht said there was a growing reluctance to establish any new Convention working groups, especially as the Convention members had full-time jobs elsewhere.

Regional involvement – should it be in the constitution?

One questioner challenged the idea that the details of regional involvement were a matter to be included in the constitution, but Mr De Gucht insisted that the possibility of split votes and a strong regional role should be included, even if precise mechanisms were left to Member States to sort out.

Mr Jeffery observed that regions with domestic powers would always want to use that clout to get its Member State to act appropriately at EU level: “I worry about too singular an emphasis on that route, because of questions of principle about subsidiarity, which extend beyond states which have strong regions.”

There was a need for territorial cohesion and a sense of leadership in the strong regions in that respect.

Mr Cuatrecasas said the complexity of the EU was a reality for good reasons, and that binding the regions, and the prospect of split votes, into the constitution would not complicate the situation further.

Mr De Gucht said some regions obviously considered themselves more equal than others because of their legislative powers, populations, and economic strengths, and any new Treaty would not change that view.

The solution was to have a system of split votes and other rights, such as direct regional access to the European Court of Justice. These points should be in the constitution, or in the Treaty. It would be up to Member States to designate which regions benefit from which of these optional EU rights.

Mr Gizard said it was legitimate that regions have a legislative role based on their constitutional powers and populations. And it was vital that regions with power did play a “locomotive role” in the EU.  

Mr Jeffery said the Committee of the Regions should not shy away from recognising different types of regional authority in its make-up. Nor should the Committee shy away from thinking of providing different fora for different regions “and in that way preserve some kind of common voice for all.”

Conclusion

Summing up, Hywel Ceri Jones said the message was clear: While it was not helpful to divide the powerful regions from areas with no legislative powers, it would be equally unhelpful for the EU and the Committee of the Regions, in particular, to fail to recognise the nature of diversity that exists. The creation of a sub-grouping of the Committee to discuss such matters might build bridges.

There was a feeling that simply improving the workings of the Committee of the Regions was not enough and that its role in the decision-making process should be provided for in some specific reference in the Treaty. It was nothing new, he said, to have different ministers from the regions involved in the Council, and some felt the Treaty should define more explicitly the fact that Member States have different constitutions and arrangement that need to be respected.

The Convention is likely to look at building in some mechanism involving national parliaments – but would that include regional parliaments? These were all issues that needed further study – and The EPC was keeping an eye on the prospects of a special Convention working group for the regions.

For more analyses, visit the

EPC website.