EUU, Alm.del - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 76: Referat af Trojka-møde og COSAC-møde 24-26/10-10 i Bruxelles

AGENDA:1.Opening session of the XLIV COSACWelcome addresses by Mr Philippe MAHOUX, Co-Chairman of the FederalAdvisory Committee on European Affairs of the Federal Parliament of Belgium andMr Herman DE CROO, Member of Parliament and a former Speaker of the BelgianChambre des représentantsAdoption of the agenda of the XLIV COSACPresentation of the Fourteenth Bi-annual Report of COSACDecisions of the Presidential Troika of COSAC2. 1st theme of the Fourteenth Bi-annual Report of COSAC: Sustainable development andthe programme EU2020Introduction by Prof. ir. Bernard MAZIJN, Ghent University3. 3rd theme of the Fourteenth Bi-annual Report of COSAC: The future role of COSACafter the entry into force of the Treaty of LisbonIntroduction by Mr Herman DE CROO, Member of Parliament and a former Speaker of theBelgianChambre des représentants4. State of play of the Belgian Presidency of the EU CouncilGuest Speaker: Mr Yves LETERME, Prime Minister of Belgium5. 2nd theme of the Fourteenth Bi-annual Report of COSAC: Parliamentary control of theEuropean security and defence policyIntroduction by Prof. Dr. Jan WOUTERS, Catholic University of Leuven6. Chairpersons' meeting on the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIV COSAC7. Intervention by Mr Danny PIETERS, Speaker of the BelgianSénat8. Intervention by Mr José Manuel BARROSO, President of the European Commission9. Intervention by Mr Herman VAN ROMPUY, President of the European Council10. Debate and adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIV COSAC

PROCEEDINGS (on 25 October 2010):1. Opening session of the XLIV COSACThe opening session of the XLIV COSAC meeting was co-chaired by Mr Philippe MAHOUX,Co-Chairman of the Federal Advisory Committee on European Affairs of the Federal Parliamentof Belgium, and Mr Herman DE CROO, Member of Parliament and a former Speaker of theBelgianChambre des représentants.Mr Philippe MAHOUX and Mr Herman DE CROO warmly welcomed the participants of theXLIV COSAC meeting and extended a particular welcome to the newly elected Chairpersons ofthe Committees on European Affairs of the BulgarianNarodno sabranie,the CzechPoslaneckásněmovna,the SlovakianNárodná rada,the SwedishRiksdagand the UKHouse of Commons.Mr MAHOUX recalled that this is the third COSAC meeting in Brussels and the twelfth BelgianPresidency of the EU Council. The Chairman underlined that the agenda of the current BelgianPresidency was largely dominated by the matters related to the implementation of the Treaty ofLisbon.1

Mr Philippe MAHOUX proposed the adoption of the agenda of the XLIV COSAC meeting. Theagenda was adopted without changes.The Fourteenth Bi-annual Report of COSAC was presented by Mr MAHOUX who thanked theCOSAC Secretariat for drafting the report. The Chairman introduced the three topics of thereport noting that they would be discussed during this COSAC meeting and that the informationanalysed in the report would serve as a good basis for the discussions.Mr DE CROO informed the participants of the XLIV COSAC of the decisions of the PresidentialTroika meeting which took place the day before. Among them was the decision to give the floorto the President of the Assembly of Western European Union (henceforth "WEU"), as an experton the issue of parliamentary control of the common security and defence policy, during theupcoming XLIV COSAC debate on the subject.2. 1st theme of the Fourteenth Bi-annual Report of COSAC: Sustainable development andthe programme EU2020Introduction by Prof. ir. Bernard MAZIJN, Ghent UniversityIn his introduction to the debate Prof. ir. Bernard MAZIJN first explained the evolution of theconcept of "sustainable development" from a vague idea to the concept we know today. Prof.MAZIJN stressed that over the last 20-25 years experts had been developing methodologies onoperationalisation of this concept, yet all international reports agreed that it was 'too little toolate'. Then, Prof. MAZIJN presented and commented on chapter 1 of the Fourteenth Bi-annualReport of COSAC on Sustainable development in the EUROPE 2020 Strategy.20 Members of COSAC took the floor during the debate, which followed the introduction byProf. MAZIJN. Some Members underlined the importance of the EUROPE 2020 Strategy as anessential instrument aimed at promoting economic growth in Europe. In order to overcome thecrisis in the long-term, some Members proposed to invest more in research and innovations.For several Members, certain elements of the EUROPE 2020 Strategy, such as biodiversity, jobcreation, transport policy, education and innovation were not sufficiently developed.Some Members pointed out that it was important to focus on structural reforms in order tostabilise public finances.Members also mentioned that, according to them, the EUROPE 2020 Strategy did notsufficiently ensure the economic and social integration and was not linked to key globalchallenges such as the fight against poverty.Moreover, some Members stressed the importance of the role of national Parliaments in theimplementation of the EUROPE 2020 Strategy and especially through the budgetary means.Furthermore, they underlined that national Parliaments should proactively follow the process ofimplementation of the EUROPE 2020 Strategy. Many suggested the need to provide forsanctions in order to overcome the lack of involvement of some Member States. The importanceof creating mechanisms which could support the implementation of the EUROPE 2020 Strategywas also underlined by many delegations. Concerning the evaluation of the implementation of

the EUROPE 2020 Strategy, some Members mentioned the need to exchange information andbest practices between national Parliaments.Some Members recalled the failure of the Lisbon Strategy and indicated the need to clarify andspecify the objectives of the EUROPE 2020 Strategy in order to make it easier to evaluate itsresults.3. 3rd theme of the Fourteenth Bi-annual Report of COSAC: The future role of COSACafter the entry into force of the Treaty of LisbonIntroduction by Mr Herman DE CROO, Member of Parliament and a former Speaker of theBelgianChambre des représentantsCOSAC held a debate on the future role of COSAC, continuing the debate started in theprevious, XLIII COSAC with the aim of elaborating possible further developments within theframework of COSAC.Analysing the replies of the 40 national Parliaments/Chambers and of the European Parliament,Mr Herman DE CROO made a distinction between the “traditional” activities of COSAC (i.e. theformer COSAC co-ordinated subsidiarity checks, the debate on the European Commission WorkProgramme and the exchange of information and best practice) and its “new” activities (i.e.monitoring Europol and evaluating the activities of Eurojust, involving specialised parliamentarycommittees and organising of a “European Week”).Regarding the former category, Mr DE CROO observed that:the views of the Parliaments/Chambers on COSAC co-ordinated subsidiarity checksvaried substantially;only practical obstacles seemed to be in the way of an annual debate on the EuropeanCommission Work Programme;the exchange of information and best practice was traditionally considered to be the mostimportant mission of COSAC.Regarding the latter category, Mr DE CROO noticed that:monitoring Europol and evaluating the activities of Eurojust would probably become oneof the most exciting challenges for COSAC;the participation in COSAC of the specialised parliamentary committees needed furtherreflection;the attitude towards a possible "European Week" was not necessarily optimistic in everyParliament/Chamber.As a conclusion to his introduction, Mr DE CROO stated that, on the one hand, COSAC willhave to consolidate a number of its traditional activities, and, on the other hand, it will have toevaluate a number of new missions in order to eventually reach a standpoint on their addedvalue.Amongst the 24 Members of Parliaments who contributed to the debate the predominant opinionwas that COSAC should continue to be a forum of sharing information and best practice betweennational Parliaments and the European Parliament on issues related to the European affairs.

Most interventions stressed the importance of COSAC debates on highly political issues, whichwould ensure that national Parliaments contribute to the discussions on substantial questions.Therefore many speakers emphasized that COSAC should focus more on substantial points andless on competence-related issues.Some Members also underlined the importance of close cooperation between the EuropeanParliament and national Parliaments, which should also go beyond the framework of COSAC.However, it was made evident that there were controversial points in this cooperation (i.e.Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the European Commission).Therefore a number of Members of national Parliaments insisted on respecting the institutionalbalance between the EU institutions according to the letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbonand reflecting it in the Contribution of XLIV COSAC.Furthermore, Members pointed out that COSAC should continue to play a major role in theimplementation of the Treaty of Lisbon,inter alia,by holding regular debates on theimplementation of the Treaty provisions related to the new powers of national Parliaments. Theyalso pointed out the need for a more efficient coordination of views of national Parliaments, formore efficient ways of dealing with subsidiarity issues and for enhanced cooperation betweenIPEX and COSAC. COSAC coordinated subsidiarity checks were considered to be effectiveaccording to some interventions.Concerning the involvement of specialized parliamentary committees in the work of COSAC,the interventions highlighted the approach that was also reflected in the Fourteenth Bi-annualReport, namely that the composition of the delegations to COSAC was an autonomous right ofeach national Parliament/Chamber. Therefore specialized parliamentary committees could beinvolved in the activities of COSAC.Many Members of Parliaments mentioned in their interventions that the basis for the annualCOSAC debate should be the European Commission Work Programme, which would enablenational Parliaments to form their opinions on the Commission's yearly work and therefore toensure a better reflection of the political views of national Parliaments at the European level.In this context, most interventions underlined the importance of the debates on European issuesby national Parliaments. This was viewed as an important means of overcoming the deficit ofdemocracy in the EU since national Parliaments are closer to citizens than the EU institutions.During the debate, some Members also underlined that advanced technology tools such asvideoconferencing should be used more widely in interparliamentary cooperation.Summarising the debate, Mr DE CROO distinguished the following:on the one hand, the primacy of national Parliaments,inter alia,because of theirproximity to the citizens;on the other hand, the democratic character of the European Parliament which might befurther enhanced by, e.g. the citizens’ initiative;the need to bring national Parliaments and the European Parliament closer together withthe help of such bridges as COSAC, which has evolved into a forum of open debatesbetween Members of national Parliaments and the European Parliament.The main challenge will consist in letting this to be known to the citizens.

4. State of play of the Belgian Presidency of the EU CouncilGuest Speaker: Mr Yves LETERME, Prime Minister of BelgiumIn the introductory part of his presentation, Mr Yves LETERME emphasized that the preparationof the Belgian Presidency of the EU Council had been carried out in full compliance with theletter and the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon and the Belgian institutional set-up.Mr LETERME explained that the Belgian Presidency Programme was elaborated around thefollowing five main themes: (i) the socio-economic cohesion, (ii) the implementation of theStockholm Programme, (iii) the social dimension of the EU, (iv) the environment and theclimate, and (v) the EU external dimension, the enlargement of the EU and the establishment ofthe European External Action Service.Next, the Prime Minister presented some of the main results of the Belgian Presidency so far,such as the conclusion of the so-called SWIFT agreement, allowing sharing EU citizens' bankdata with the US authorities and the setting up of the European External Action Service.According to Mr LETERME, as a result of the decisions taken on the organisation and operationof the Service along with the adopted associated instruments on its financing and status, theEuropean External Action Service would be operational and start functioning on 1 December2010.As to the financial sector reforms, Mr LETERME stated that the Belgian Presidency wasworking towards consolidation of financial integration, creation of a new architecture forsupervision of the financial sector, improvement of stability of the financial system andincreasing consumer and investor protection. Some work had already been done to create a newsupervisory structure at European level to detect and identify systematic risks for financialstability. The legislative package met the agreement of the Council and the European Parliament.As for the supervision of the banking system, a global agreement was reached last September.Concerning the regulation of hedge funds and private equity firms, an agreement on the directiveon Alternative Investment Fund Managers was also on the way. The objectives were to avoid therepetition of the collapse of the banking system and to establish adequate solidarity mechanisms.In the area of common commercial policy, the Prime Minister emphasized the free-tradeagreement with South Korea, which is considered to be an important step to enhance theinternational trade relations of the EU.Mr LETERME further mentioned the political agreement of the EU Ministers of Transportconcerning the revision of the Eurovignette directive which allows Member States to recover theexternal costs generated by road haulage.The Prime Minister continued by giving an extensive presentation of the EUROPE 2020 Strategyfor employment and growth, successor of the Lisbon Strategy. Following the new approach,Member States are required to identify their national targets, the main bottlenecks hindering theirprogress and to establish a comprehensive reform programme. In December the EuropeanCouncil would take stock of the progress. This strategy had to be seen as an integral part of theEU’s Economic Governance. Accordingly, it was critically important that the macro-economic,budgetary and EU Strategies complement and reinforce each other. Innovation was highlighted,as a determining element within the EUROPE 2020 Strategy. Therefore it was important to find

as soon as possible an agreement on the European Patent, in order to protect innovations andresults of research. Mr LETERME underlined that the credibility of the EUROPE 2020 Strategywould partly depend on the ability to implement the European Patent initiative.The Prime Minister further focused on the conclusions reached by the so-called Task Force onEconomic Governance (i.e. the working group chaired by the President of the EuropeanCouncil), which will be submitted to the European Council on 28-29 October 2010. The planwas to have the European Council endorse these conclusions and to decide on the way forward inorder to agree on a framework for crisis management before the current framework terminates.Mr LETERME informed COSAC that in order to implement the conclusions of the Task Force, aTreaty change might be needed, as requested by Germany. The Prime Minister expressed hopethat the requisite legislation would be in force by the middle of 2011.As to the remaining part of the Belgian Presidency, Mr LETERME focused on two importantmeetings: first, the G20 Summit in Seoul, where subjects such as exchange rate interventions andthe reform of international financial institutions would be discussed, and secondly, the ClimateConference in Cancun, where the European Commission and the Belgian Presidency intended toact as a joint team.In the ensuing debate, a large variety of issues where raised. Members asked the Belgian PrimeMinister about the EU enlargement prospects, more specifically in view of Serbia’s candidacy,whereas concerning Croatia’s accession perspectives were generally considered positively.Other interventions concerned the area of climate change and renewable energy, the economicand financial crisis, and the social dimension.The Stability and Growth Pact has also been a subject of several interventions, with concernsabout the possible financial sanctions for Member States that fail to adhere to the targets. Somespeakers questioned whether such measures would be compatible with the concept of Europeansolidarity. The possible need to amend the Treaties also raised some concerns among thespeakers.The European External Action Service also raised questions including some concerns over therepresentation of smaller EU Members States within the Service.Some questions were raised on the efforts made by the Belgian Presidency with regard tospecific EU Regional Policies, including the Danube Strategy and the Eastern Partnership.In his replies, Mr LETERME expressed hope for rapid conclusion of the accession negotiationswith Croatia and noted that the negotiations with Turkey continued.Regarding the economic situation in the EU, the Prime Minister noted signs of timid recoveryand considered that the issue of sanctions against Member States had to be handled carefully aswell as possible amendments of the Treaties.5. 2nd theme of the Fourteenth Bi-annual Report of COSAC: Parliamentary control of theEuropean security and defence policyIntroduction by Prof. Dr. Jan WOUTERS, Catholic University of Leuven

The debate on the parliamentary control of the European security and defence policy (henceforth"CSDP") was preceded by an introduction by Prof. Dr. Jan WOUTERS, who underlined thegreat importance of this topic especially in the light of the secession of the activities of theAssembly of WEU in June 2011.Prof. WOUTERS started his intervention by recalling what the Treaty of Lisbon says and what itdoes not say on CSDP and the parliamentary oversight of this area. Prof. WOUTERS recalledthat CSDP is governed by Articles 2 (4), 42, 44, 46 TEU, Article 222 TFEU and Protocols 1 and10. However, there are no specific provisions in the Treaty which explicitly deal with the issue ofparliamentary scrutiny of CSDP. Therefore, Prof. WOUTERS highlighted a 'somewhatremarkable paradox' of the Treaty of Lisbon, which reinforces CSDP without providing for amore adequate parliamentary oversight of this policy area, i.e. the limited powers of theEuropean Parliament remain largely unchanged, the organisation and promotion of effective andregular interparliamentary cooperation within the EU remains to be determined together by theEuropean Parliament and national Parliaments, while COSAC will be able to organiseinterparliamentary conferences on CFSP, including CSDP. Prof. WOUTERS also pointed outthat the Treaty of Lisbon strived to take a major qualitative step forward in the EU externalrelations, in particular by creating the post of the triple-hatted High Representative on ForeignAffairs and Security Policy and making CSDP an integral part of the EU external relations.Next, Prof. WOUTERS proceeded to the analysis of the replies of national Parliaments and theEuropean Parliament to the questionnaire for the Fourteenth Bi-annual Report of COSAC andsketched the following main tendencies:most Parliaments enthusiastically support the need for interparliamentary exchangeon CFSP and CSDP;interparliamentary scrutiny should cover both CFSP and CSDP;costs associated with the interparliamentary scrutiny of CSDP should be kept to aminimum.Prof. WOUTERS concluded by saying that there is a need to reflect on the successor of theAssembly of WEU and to continue parliamentary debates on the forum for theinterparliamentary scrutiny of CSDP because such debates have not yet reached a stage ofmaturity to enable to take a final decision.Following the introduction, the President of the Assembly of WEU Mr Robert WALTER tookthe floor as an expert. Mr WALTER recalled the history of the Assembly of WEU and itsactivities over 55 years. He underlined the need for a pro-active and effective parliamentaryscrutiny of CSDP which under the Treaty of Lisbon by its nature remains intergovernmental. MrWALTER singled out two models for future interparliamentary oversight of CSDP: a passiveand a pro-active and suggested creating a small steering group to arrive to a consensus on thisdecision within the following six months.In the ensuing debate, 24 speakers took the floor. Some Members presented the comprehensivereflections of their Parliaments on how interparliamentary scrutiny of CSDP should beconducted. For instance, Mr Česlovas Vytautas STANKEVIČIUS presented the proposal of theLithuanianSeimason COFDAC, while Ms Francesca Maria MARINARO and Mr NunzianteCONSIGLIO presented the proposal of the ItalianCamera dei DeputatiandSenato dellaRepubblicaon Interparliamentary Conference for European Foreign, Defence and SecurityPolicy.

Other Members in their interventions underscored principles which should govern the futureinterparliamentary scrutiny of CFSP and CSDP, such as:the need to define the scope of the parliamentary scrutiny of CSDP;to streamline the existing interparliamentary cooperation;not to create new bodies, structures or institutions;to find an optimal institutional solution by involving COFACC, CODAC and COSAC;to have an effective and regular democratic oversight which has added value;the need for national Parliaments and the European Parliament to work together fordetermining the optimal solution.Following the debate, Prof. WOUTERS presented his summary highlighting the following pointsof agreement:1. Necessity to have interparliamentary scrutiny of CSDP;2. National Parliaments' intention to weigh heavily in the parliamentary scrutiny of CSDP;3. Complementarity of the activities of national Parliaments and the European Parliament;4. Strong need to use existing expertise, bearing in mind that CSDP is an integral part ofCFSP;5. No need to create new unnecessary structures, but to ensure an added value and to avoidunnecessary overlaps;6. Need for cost effectiveness;7. Need to be openvis-a-visthird countries.6. Chairpersons' meeting on the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIV COSACTwo weeks prior to the XLIV COSAC meeting the Belgian Presidency had put forward a draft ofthe Contribution and Conclusions giving COSAC delegations the opportunity to submit theirproposals for amendments. The submitted amendments were discussed at the Chairpersons'meeting at the end of the first day of the XLIV COSAC meeting. The Chairpersons discussedand agreed on a number of amendments to the proposed drafts of the Contribution andConclusions. Based on the Chairpersons' decisions, the second drafts of the Contribution andConclusions were prepared and submitted for debates and adoption by COSAC on the secondday of the XLIV COSAC meeting.PROCEEDINGS (on 26 October 2010):7. Intervention by Mr Danny PIETERS, Speaker of the BelgianSénatThe debates of the XLIV COSAC on 26 October 2010 were preceded by the intervention by MrDanny PIETERS, Speaker of the BelgianSénat,who welcomed the participants of the XLIVCOSAC meeting and reassured them of the unquestionable commitment of Belgium towards theEU and its integration process.8. Intervention by Mr José Manuel BARROSO, President of the European CommissionMr José Manuel BARROSO started his intervention by referring to recent challenges both at theinternational level, as the economic and financial crisis, and at the European level, as the8

negative outcome of referenda on the Constitutional Treaty and the need to implement thechanges foreseen in the Treaty of Lisbon. In these facts lies the origin of the political dialoguebetween national Parliaments and the European Commission, which has been taking place in thelast four years. In this context, Mr BARROSO suggested that national Parliaments played a rolein the preparation of the European Commission Working Program for 2012.The economic recovery, which is on its way, is based on three pillars: (i) a fundamental andcomprehensive reform of the European financial system, where supervision has already beenimplemented; (ii) the need for a stronger approach to economic governance, based on theconsensus bolstered by the Task Force led by Mr Van ROMPUY and (iii) the EUROPE 2020Strategy. Within this Strategy, which establishes a co-ordinated European framework thatreduces the risk of unilateral measures that could erode the Single Market, the President of theEuropean Commission focused on issues such as the Digital agenda, the industrial policy, thefight against poverty and exclusion, the resource efficiency? He also mentioned the concernsexpressed by national Parliaments on the proposal by the European Commission on the seasonalworkers directive. These concerns will be analysed by the Commission before taking a decisionon its 'political reply'.Given the fact that national Parliaments are meant to participate in the implementation of theEUROPE 2020 Strategy through the approval of the National Reform Programs, Mr BARROSOstressed the need for a political consensus on these issues at the national level.Several issues were raised in the debate which followed the intervention of Mr BARROSO, suchas the totalitarian regimes and their victims; the importance of cooperation between the EuropeanCommission and national Parliaments for the success of EUROPE 2020 Strategy; the possibleveto of an initiative by national Parliaments; and the delay of the European Commissionresponses to comments made by national Parliaments. The difficulties reflected in the negativeoutcome of the referendum on the Constitutional Treaty were also mentioned, as well as thedifference between the concepts of cooperation and imposition. The questions asked to MrBARROSO by Members of national Parliaments also referred to such topics as the ecologicalsituation in the Baltic Sea and the European Patent System.Mr Miguel Ángel MARTÍNEZ, Vice President of the European Parliament, asked a question onthe role of the European Commission in the relationship between the European Parliament andnational Parliaments, as well as on the relevance of any mention in the COSAC Contribution ofthe framework agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission.Mr BARROSO answered these questions, stating that there was no uniform reading of the past,but unity against any attack on freedom; as to the delays in answering the comments sent bynational Parliaments, he recalled the need to translate European Commission responses toofficial languages, and asked for understanding, as there had been no increase in the EuropeanCommission staff. The need to simplify the linguistic regime on Patents was considered by thePresident of the European Commission as the only option to make the European Patent Systemcompetitive compared to those of the USA or China. He identified distance between people andpolitics as one of the main problems of the EU, even if the EU has full democratic legitimacy. Asto the European Parliament, he agreed on the need of a special partnership between the EuropeanCommission and the European Parliament, given the fact that the European Parliament holds adirect legitimacy while the European Commission holds an indirect legitimacy.

Due to the technical problems that arose during his intervention, the President of the EuropeanCommission invited the Members of COSAC to forward their unanswered questions to theEuropean Commission promising to answer them in writing.9. Intervention by Mr Herman VAN ROMPUY, President of the European CouncilMr Herman VAN ROMPUY started his intervention with some reflections on the EUinstitutional framework established by the Treaty of Lisbon, and in particular regarding the tasksof the President of the European Council as well as the role of the EU Parliaments.With regard to the newly created post of the President of the European Council, Mr VANROMPUY emphasised the full-time character of the post and its role as consensus facilitator atthe European Council meetings. In this sense, there should not be any confusion with the role ofthe President of the European Commission, as the European Commission initiates legislativeproposals, while the European Council sets out the Union’s strategic directions. As a furthermajor difference with the President of the Commission, Mr VAN ROMPUY underlined that thePresident of the European Council is neither elected by nor accountable to the EuropeanParliament.On the role of the Parliaments of the EU, Mr VAN ROMPUY highlighted the double democraticlegitimacy, as articulated by the European Parliament and by national Parliaments, as a uniquestrength of the EU. The Treaty of Lisbon has improved democratic accountability by increasingboth the powers of the European Parliament, whose approval is needed for passing most of theEU legislation, and by explicitly recognising the role of national Parliaments in different EUprocedures. On the other hand, the members of national Governments which sit in the Councilare also accountable to national Parliaments. Therefore the subsidiarity scrutiny by nationalParliaments can prove to be an important asset in shaping the position of the Ministers in theCouncil.On the European Council, Mr VAN ROMPUY explained that, while not denying the“intergovernmental” aspects of the Union, the internal functioning of the European Council isnot purely intergovernmental, as the President of the European Commission is a full member ofthe institution and the President of the European Council does not represent a Member State ashe is appointed to work for the overall interest of the Union. Furthermore, in some matters, theEU has at its disposal a number of procedures which do not require unanimity of the MemberStates.In any case, the perception of a power shift in favour of the European Council is due to thesignificant role this institution has played in relation to the current main preoccupation of the EU- macroeconomic governance -, which requires the coordination of national policies, as 98% ofpublic spending in the EU is carried out at the national or sub-national level.In relation to the role played by the European Council in macroeconomic policy, Mr VANROMPUY summarised the work of the Task Force he had chaired and whose report had justbeen published1, and where the following topics were dealt with: (i) the review of the Stabilityand Growth Pact; (ii) the broadening of the scope of monitoring national economic developments1

and (iii) a deeper coordination of national policy decisions. In this regard, the Task Force is fullyaware that the responsibility for monetary decisions lies at the European level and theresponsibility for budgetary matters and for economic policy remains at the national level,although within a jointly agreed framework. On this basis, the Task Force proposes actions inorder to ensure that each Member State fully takes into account the impact of its economic andfiscal decisions on its partners and on the stability of the Union as a whole, and to strengthen thecapacity at the EU level to react when the policies of one Member State threaten the Union.The Task Force report will be forwarded to the meeting of the European Council on 28-29October 2010, in order to seek the political backing of the EU Heads of State and Government.In this context, Mr VAN ROMPUY underlined that the issues concerning the Stability andGrowth Pact were not just a matter of sanctions to be imposed on Member States or therectification of past mistakes. The Stability and Growth Pact had to be seen in a wider context:during this crisis, which had been compared to the Great Depression, the Union managed toavoid the mistakes made in the 1930´s; and, in order to avoid another such crisis, the Union facesthe challenge of improving Europe’s structural growth rate and its general economicperformance, which will be the focus of the EUROPE 2020 Strategy.During the ensuing debate, the following relevant issues were singled out: macroeconomicgovernance and the proposals set forth by the Task Force; the issue of possible sanctions toMember States that endanger the Stability and Growth Pact; the planned increase of the EUbudget for 2011 while the Member States’ budgets are being drastically cut; the permanent fiscaltransfers to weaker Member States; the Franco-German Deauville Declaration which introducedelements of flexibility in the procedure for the establishment of sanctions; the EUROPE 2020Strategy; the Cancún Summit for Climate Change; and the Union for the Mediterranean.In relation to the economic crisis, the President of the European Council argued that the crisis,although it had not started in Europe, needed a European solution, and this solution was also aresponsibility of individual Member States. For its part, the setting up of the Task Force was aproof of the flexibility of the EU institutional framework, where the different institutionsinvolved had complemented each other to seek a solution to the crisis.Regarding the Franco-German Deauville Declaration, Mr VAN ROMPUY stated that theprocedure regarding excessive deficit was already in the Treaties and an important consensus hadbeen reached, although there was still work to be done. In relation to the issue of monitoring, theconditions had been very flexible, in order to take into account the different economic situationsto be found in different Member States. Finally, on the issue of budget cuts, Mr VAN ROMPUYhighlighted the relative importance of the national and EU budgets in relation to the size of theirrespective economies.Incoming Hungarian PresidencyMr Richárd HÖRCSIK, Chairman of the Committee on European Affairs of the HungarianOrszággyűlés,introduced the forthcoming Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the EuropeanUnion in the first semester of 2011. The Hungarian Presidency plans to focus its attention on thereform of the Common Agricultural Policy, the future of the Cohesion Policy and on promotingthe creation of a common energy policy. During the Presidency, the Hungarian Parliament willorganise eight meetings of the Committee Chairpersons (i.e. the Committees on Finance,Committees on Regional Development and Sustainable Development, Committees on