EUU, Alm.del - 2012-13 - Bilag 60: Referat af COSAC-møde og Trojka-møde 14.-16. oktober 2012 i Nicosia

IN THE CHAIR: Mr Averof NEOFYTOU, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign andEuropean Affairs (CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon).AGENDA:1. Welcome addresses and procedural issues- Welcoming addresses by Mr Christos CHRISTOFIDIS, Representative of H.E. ThePresident of the Republic Mr Demetris CHRISTOFIAS and Mr Sophoclis FITTIS, Representativeof H.E. The President of the House of Representatives Mr Yiannakis L. OMIROU.- Adoption of the agenda of the XLVIII COSAC.- Presentation of the 18thBi-annual Report of COSAC.- Procedural issues.2. State of play/ Priorities of the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the European UnionKeynote speaker: Mr Andreas MAVROYIANNIS, Deputy Minister for EU Affairs.3. From words to action: making “more Europe” a realityKeynote speakers: Mr MarošŠEFČOVIČ,Vice-President of the European Commission for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration, and Mr Carlo CASINI, Chairman of the ConstitutionalAffairs Committee of the European Parliament.4. Energy – security of supplyKeynote speakers: Mr Solon KASSINIS, Director of Energy Service, Ministry of Commerce,Industry and Tourism.5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC- Debate on the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVIII COSAC.6. Europe 2020 strategy – recovery from the economic crisisKeynote speaker: Ms Pervenche BERÈS, Chairwoman of the Committee on Employment andSocial Affairs of the European Parliament.7. Single Market governanceKeynote speaker: Mr Pierre DELSAUX, Deputy Director General, Directorate General, InternalMarket and Services, European Commission.8. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVIII COSAC

Mr NEOFYTOU then referred to the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to the European Union inrecent days and stated that the Presidential Troika had agreed to include a reference to this in theCOSAC Contribution for the approval by delegations.1.1 Welcome addressesMr Christos CHRISTOFIDES, Director of the Office of the President of the Republic, delivered awelcome address on behalf of Mr Demetris CHRISTOFIAS President of the Republic of Cyprus,who was detained elsewhere on urgent business. In his address he welcomed the increased role,under the Lisbon Treaty, of the European Parliament as co-legislator. He also said that thestrengthening of the role of national Parliaments in the planning of strategy and the creation of EUpolicies was an important step towards reducing the democratic deficit faced by the Union. Hespoke then about progress on the main priorities of the Cyprus Presidency; he hoped that politicalagreement would be reached on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) at the NovemberEuropean Council on a budget which would contribute to the strengthening of social convergenceand cohesion. He also hoped also that there would be agreement on the establishment of thebanking union by the end of their Presidency.Mr Sophoclis FITTIS, on behalf of Mr Yiannakis L. OMIROU, President of the House ofRepresentatives who had been detained elsewhere on urgent business, warmly welcomed theparticipants and officially opened the XLVIII meeting of COSAC. He urged the finding of newsolutions and new ideas through which the EU could be set, once again, on the course ofsustainable development without exclusions. This should be centred on fiscal consolidation and therevitalisation of investments and the freeing of the single currency from the structural problems itcurrently faces.1.2 Adoption of the agenda of the XLVIII meeting of COSACMr NEOFYTOU stated that interventions from the floor would be limited to two minutes and thatany amendments to the Contribution or Conclusions should be submitted by 12 noon of the sameday. In the absence of any objection, the agenda was then adopted without amendment.1.3 Presentation of the 18thBi-annual report of COSACThe Chairman thanked the COSAC secretariat for its work in drafting the Report and invited thePermanent Member of the Secretariat to make a short presentation on the findings and conclusionsof the Report.1.4 Procedural issuesThe Chairman noted two letters: one from Mr Taavi RÕIVAS, Chairman of EU Affairs Committeeof the EstonianRiigikogupresenting the conclusions of a meeting between the Estonian, Latvian,Lithuanian and Polish Parliaments on 13-14 September; and the second from Mr RichárdHORCIK, Chairman of the Committee on EU Affairs of the HungarianOrszággyüléspresentingthe conclusions of a meeting between the Hungarian, Polish, Czech and Slovakian Parliaments on25-27 September at which the Croatian European Integration Committee also attended.

reflected in the report "Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union" of June 2012. Headded that close cooperation between the European Parliament and national Parliaments must beensured for the completion of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).Mr MAVROYIANNIS pointed out that Cyprus had held the Presidency at a very crucial period forthe future of Europe due to the economic crisis. It had committed to working towards a betterEurope, closer to its citizens, placing importance on social cohesion and on the principle ofsolidarity. The Cyprus Presidency had tried to set realistic and achievable goals. The main topicsof the Presidency had been determined by the ongoing developments in the European Union, suchas the completion of the negotiations of the new MFF, the completion of the Common EuropeanAsylum System, economic governance, the banking union, the 2013 budget and the Single MarketAct (SMA).Regarding theMFF,Mr MAVROYIANNIS said that the Cyprus Presidency wanted to completethe negotiations by the end of 2012 and reach an agreement for a budget that supported growth,employment, competitiveness and convergence, having in mind the Europe 2020 strategy, asdiscussed in the European Council in June 2012. In September, a revised negotiating box had beenpresented and a further one would follow in view of the extraordinary European Council meetingon 22-23 November 2012 which would contain ranges in terms of figures.Concerning theCommon European Asylum System,Mr MAVROYIANNIS stated that anagreement had been reached on the Directive on Reception Conditions and the Dublin Regulationwhile the negotiations were progressing on the Directive on Procedures for examining applicationsfor the Regulation Eurodac. With regards to Schengen governance the decision of the EPConference of Presidents in September led to the re-opening of five files related to borders that hadpreviously been suspended.Mr MAVROYIANNIS emphasised that the Cyprus Presidency attached great importance tomatters ofeconomic governanceand had given priority to the "Two Pack" proposals. ThePresidency would continue its effort with the European Parliament to reach an agreement for theseproposals by end of 2012.The banking unionproposals had already been discussed by an ad hoc Working Group and theCyprus Presidency aimed at reaching an agreement on the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SMM)by the end of 2012. The Presidency focused on the four pillars of the banking union, fiscal union,economic union and political union. The Minister further noted that the Deposit GuaranteeSchemes and the Bank Recovery and Resolution proposals that are related to the SMM were alsobeing discussed.Another priority of the Cyprus Presidency was theSMA,Mr MAVROYIANNIS said that underthe Danish Presidency one proposal under the SMA was concluded, six others were expected to beadopted under the Cyprus Presidency, while negotiations for five others will continue under theIrish Presidency. In addition, the Minister said that three of these proposals are dependant upon theMFF. The new SMA II had recently been published.In the debate which followed, 19 speakers took the floor. A number of speakers expressedsatisfaction at the progress of the work of the Cyprus Presidency. Mr Miguel Angel MARTÍNEZMARTÍNEZ (European Parliament) thanked the Presidency for its good cooperation with theEuropean Parliament and congratulated it for its ambitions and efficiency in realising itsobjectives. Referring to the Nobel Peace prize awarded to the EU, he said that this should be seen

as recognition of what had been achieved in terms of peace, democracy and social progress, butalso as a warning that “we should continue to stand by these values”. In the context of the MFF, onwhich the European Parliament has to give its consent, Mr MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ stated thatthe contents should fall in line with the Europe 2020 strategy in order to boost growth and createjob opportunities. Mr Nunziante CONSIGLIO (ItalianCamera dei Deputati)welcomed theemphasis the Cyprus Presidency attached to the Mediterranean dimension, as well as to the resultsachieved by the Presidency in terms of external borders and migration. Mr Fidias SARIKAS(CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon)expressed the view that fiscal consolidation must beaccompanied by long term strategies for growth in order to promote the creation of jobs.Mr ĽubošBLAHA (SlovakNárodná rada)supported the view that cohesion policy is the right track for thefuture and expressed satisfaction that the Presidency has taken this into account in the MFF. MrRainer ROBRA (GermanBundesrat),underlining the importance of Cohesion Policy, took theview that the cuts, as decided by the Council, would endanger the structural funds in terms ofunemployment and growth.Mr Arni Thor SIGURDSON (IcelandicAlthingi)referring to Iceland’s accession to the EU,thanked the Cyprus Presidency for having supported accession negotiations so far. However, heexpressed concern and disappointment towards the European Parliament resolution and towardsthe Council for the prolonged delay in the opening of the fisheries chapter.Most of the participants expressed the need for a better and fairer distribution of the budget so thatgrowth and the creation of job opportunities arepromoted, while Mr Nicusor PĂDURARU,(RomanianCamera Deputaţilor),underlined the importance of the participation of all 27 MemberStates in the enforcement of the fiscal and sustainable policies that all 27 Member States shouldhave equal opportunities and treatment regarding their participation in the banking union. MrEdgar MAYER (AustrianBundesrat),Ms Gabriele MOLITOR (GermanBundestag)and LordTimothy BOSWELL of Aynho (UKHouse of Lords)said that the budget needed to be better spentrather than increased.Mr Epaminondas MARIAS, (GreekVouli ton Ellinon)noted the absence of Turkey at the meeting,a country that is candidate for accession at the EU but yet at the same time a country that refuses torecognise, both the Cyprus Presidency, as well as the implementation of the Customs Union. Hefurther added that Turkey also created problems at an international level by not signing EUdeclarations which involve Cyprus.Mr MAVROYIANNIS, noting and acknowledging the difficulty and sensitivity of the fisherieschapter for Iceland, said that the EU does not proceed with threats, that the fisheries chapter shouldbe opened under the right circumstances and pointed out that this could be done under the IrishPresidency. Concerning Cohesion Policy, he pointed out that the focus should be quality spending,helping those who are in more need and, in particular those in less developed regions.Mr MAVROYIANNIS stated that the Cyprus Presidency had attached importance to theMediterranean dimension and has taken into account various factors to ensure pluralism, respect tominorities and reduction of diversity. He further explained that in order to have control of borders,the rule and regulations of the European Asylum system must be common for all and that thoughthis matter cannot be concluded by the end of 2012, work was needed in order to have clarity onvarious categories, including, illegal and legal migration, asylum seekers. On the MFF, heunderlined that the Presidency had no wish to reduce the budget downwards, but that there was aneed to reach a compromise having in mind the diversity of proposals. Balance was also neededbetween austerity and fiscal discipline. With regards to the banking union, he agreed that

transparency and accountability were needed, as well as a clear separation between the monetaryfunction and that of the supervisor.With regards to social cohesion, Mr MAVROYIANNIS said that importance was attached to it andthat fiscal capacity was being considered for each Member State that is under a specific structuralprogramme. Concerning the comments for better spending, he said that better spending was qualityspending and that the budget should be orientated towards the future with "every euro well spent".On the issue of own resources, he went on to say that it was clear that an agreement by all 27Member States could not be reached on the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) as an own resourceand that there was currently an initiative by 11 Member States to have enhanced cooperation onthe FTT and that the income from this initiative will be a national resource.3. From words to action: making “more Europe” a realityKeynote speakers: Mr MarošŠEFČOVIČ,Vice-President of the European Commission for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration and Mr Carlo CASINI, Chairman of the Committee onConstitutional Affairs of the European Parliament.Vice-PresidentŠEFČOVIČsaid that the desire for "more Europe" was not a power grab byBrussels or an attack on national sovereignty but about the "Europeanisation" of national politicsto the advantage of Member States and citizens. The crisis had moved from financial andeconomic to social and political as well. Europe was still in difficult times but remedies appliedwere not all wrong. Hard decisions had been taken to tackle the crisis and its root causes which hebelieved was due to the irresponsibility of the financial sector, unsustainable public debts, andweak competitiveness in some Member States.He said that, at this time when the EU appeared far from unified, there were major challengesahead and deeper reforms were needed at the national level and deeper EMU was needed at theEuropean level. The creation of a banking union and a fiscal union, and the necessary institutionaland political mechanisms were required. He asserted that "more Europe" was the only approachwhich would bring the required unity.With theMFF,the Commission wanted to boost growth and jobs across the EU and to give valuefor money to European citizens, companies and governments. Many Member States wanted thefigures in the MFF to reflect the climate of austerity and budgetary consolidation but he arguedthat the current climate was all the more reason to maintain the Commission proposed EU budgetas it gave real added value for every euro spent. The reality was that the EU budget was only 1%of EU GNI and only 2% of Member States' national budgets. He said that the EU budget in 2020could not be the same as it was in 1990. This would be an unacceptable step backwards. He alsoappealed for the Commission's proposal for a new own resources system to be accepted.On the deepening of theEMU and the banking union,the Vice-President said that it was clearthat the economic wellbeing of the entire EU – not just the euro area – was interconnected, and thatwas why a stronger and more binding economic governance framework was needed. The bankingunion would be one of the key pillars on which a deeper EMU could be built, and the Commission,on the 12 of September 2012, had adopted a legislative proposal for a SSM based on the conferralof specific supervisory tasks to the ECB.1He said that the SSM should apply to all euro-area“Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending regulation (EU) No1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority as regards its interaction with CouncilRegulation (EU) No.../... conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies1

Member State and also be open to the participation of any other Member States. He said there wasa need for strengthening the democratic dimension of the EMU. The Commission would set out itsviews on how to progress this later in the year. The second element of a deeper economic unionwas the move towards a fiscal union.The Commission had also put forward proposals to tackle the outstanding obstacles in theinternalmarket;it had presented proposals for a modern industrial policy strategy, to be followed by anaction plan to contribute to a more entrepreneurial Europe; and before the end of the year, theCommission would launch a youth package to establish a youth guarantee scheme and equalityframework to facilitate vocational training.On the subject ofpolitical union,Vice-PresidentŠEFČOVIČhighlighted the need to movetowards a federation of nation states, as set out by President Barroso in his recent State of theUnion speech. In this regard "more Europe" meant a deeper integration, cooperation andcoordination that recognised and respected the national sovereignties and identities of the MemberStates. This would only be possible if there was more democratic accountability and transparency.In his opinion, there was no need for new institutions to make the move towards deeperintegration, but there was the need for a thorough Europe-wide debate on the issue.Mr Carlo CASINI, Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the EuropeanParliament, concentrated his remarks on how he thought "more Europe" should be legitimised byreigniting theEuropean Parliament electionsand throughinterparliamentary cooperation.Henoted that since 1979, turnout for the EP elections had continually decreased in all Member States.The question of why had to be asked as well as taking action to reverse the trend. Citizens had tobe given a "dream" to focus on and this ideal should be interlinked with the democratic principlesof "majority" and "result". The Lisbon Treaty had created two initiatives to help re-engage citizens- the European Citizens' Initiative and closer relations with national Parliaments - but there was theneed to think beyond these instruments. Mr CASINI argued that democracy and legitimacy of theEU needed to be consolidated and that national Parliaments had a role in bringing the EU closer toits citizens. He argued that the national Parliaments could, or even had an obligation, to interveneand described this as “reverse subsidiarity” and said that they had a duty to clarify and illuminateEU matters.The European Parliament elections would need to provide an answer to the question of "what is thepoint of the EU?" and provided an opportunity to reverse the trend towards distrust of the EU andits institutions. He identified three trends within the debate on this within the EP: that a genuinesingle currency including a banking union and further political union was needed; that plurality ingovernance was causing real problems and that it was important to ensure that this fragmentation isnot anarchic; therefore it should be integrated within the community method; and that there was aneed to develop the potential within the Lisbon Treaty and the TSCG. Speaking on Article 13 ofthe TSCG, he said that it would safeguard and consolidate current activity, referring to theinterparliamentary meeting that had taken place before the Spring European Council.Mr CASINI blamedlow voter turnouton the absence of a genuine European political debate andthe weakness of European political parties, the limited contrast between majority and opposition inEP, and the lack of influence people have over the membership of the Commission. To encouragere-engagement, it was important to remember the roots of the EU as a counter to the Second Worldrelating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions,” COM(2012) 512 final, published on 12September 2012.

War and a influence for peace in Europe. The Nobel Peace Prize was a reminder that the EU hadbeen the most grandiose political project of all time. He concluded by suggesting the following aspossible ways to stimulate greater turnout: the creation of European political parties; people shouldhave the impression of choice; political parties should put forward candidates for the President ofthe Commission; the President of Commission could also be President of the European Council;50% of Commissioners could come from the EP; the EP elections should all be held on the sameday; and discussion on the reform for the elections should continue. This was with the aim toensure that citizens know that "we are all together choosing for one Europe".In the debate that followed, 29 speakers took the floor. Some spoke about the situation concerningthe EMU and the financial situation within Europe, including Ms Athina KYRIAKIDOU (CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon)who said that the single supervisory body was a welcome step towardsbanking union and thought that the EU was on a good course for the future but it must continue tolisten to the citizens and their concerns. Others warned the European supervisor must work wellwith national supervisors. Ms MOLITOR said that a more stable democratic basis was required inso far as the community method had not been used sufficiently. Ms Marie GRANLUND (SwedishRiksdag)said she understood that EMU countries needed to find a solution but warned that theprocess should not be accelerated too much. Vice-PresidentŠEFČOVIČstated that the bankingunion should be able to accommodate all 27 Member States. The Commission was pushing forquick agreement, but wanted everyone to have the opportunity to be included and then treatedequally. In response to Members who were conscious of the need for austerity, Vice-PresidentŠEFČOVIČsaid that the EU should concentrate on creating growth and jobs, but acknowledgedthat reform had to be implemented.Others concentrated their remarks on the deepening political union, many agreeing that "moreEurope" was necessary. Mr Enrico FARINONE (ItalianCamera dei Deputati)agreed with this andwanted to see a quality leap in the integration process. Public opinion was frightened but had toface the reality of globalisation which brought both huge responsibilities and opportunities. MrAndrew DUFF (European Parliament) agreed with the need for further federalisation and said thisshould be extended to the form of a credible and discernable government, including a treasurysecretary; to this end he called for a convention in spring 2015.Mr Andrzej GAŁAŻEWSKI(PolishSejm)said that a new EU was emerging through the crisis mainly through inter-governmental agreements which would be a challenge for the EU in the future and called for morework to be done through the treaties. Mr Rubén MORENO (SpanishCongreso de los Diputados)said that it was crucial for the words to be put into action in the goal of deepening the EMU. MrWilliam CASH (UKHouse of Commons)said that the citizens would not accept federalism andthey wanted less Europe and less interference in parliamentary and national life. Mr HANNIGANsaid that it was important to do more in Europe on youth unemployment and to stimulate growth inorder to increase citizen support for Europe and increase turnout at elections.Replying to Mr DUFF, the Vice-President said that a treasury would likely be necessary but couldbe created within the current structures though he said that deeper integration would clearly needtreaty change. He agreed with the need for greater democratic accountability and also wanted tosee a leap in the integration process in line with this. He disagreed with the comments made by MrCASH, saying that there needed to be a genuine debate about the EU in the UK, with the plus sidesof the EU also being presented. Mr CASINI said there was a need to increase democracy throughthe creation of a genuine European demos and said that the focus of Europe should not only be oneconomic issues but also on other common ideas and values to ensure national interests that didnot come to the fore. The political integration that failed in 1954 would be needed now.

On the subject of national Parliaments and the first subsidiarity check to reach the threshold totrigger the yellow card procedure on the Monti II proposal, a number of national Parliamentariansexpressed the view that the Commission should have replied to all of the Reasoned Opinions orgiven a more precise response to the points raised. Lord BOSWELL of Aynho commented thateach Reasoned Opinion deserved a reasoned response. Others, including Ms Iva DIMIC(SlovenianDržavni zbor),were concerned by the fact that the Commission had made a sweepingstatement that the withdrawal of the proposal was not related to subsidiarity concerns that had beenraised. To these points, the Vice-President said that the first yellow card had been a learningexperience for all. He assured Members that the Reasoned Opinions had been studied carefully andnational Parliaments had been listened to and that the proposal had been withdrawn as it had beenmade clear that unanimity would not be possible. According to him, it was hard to say thatsubsidiarity had been breached, expressing the view that this was a legalistic discussion. Heapologised for the technical translation problem that meant that Council and the EP were informedof the decision to withdraw the proposal before national Parliaments. On the political dialogue, hewas pleased that the number of opinions was around 800 for this year and although this causedpressure on Commission resources, he saw this as a genuine dialogue. He apologised thatresponses from the Commission were received after the three month self-imposed deadline and heappealed to the Commission to do better. He acknowledged the criticism of the quality of thereplies expressing hope this would also improve.

4. Energy – security of supplyKeynote speakers: Mr Solon KASSINIS, Director of Energy Service, Ministry of Commerce,Industry and Tourism.Mr Solon KASSINIS, Director of Energy Services, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourismof the Republic of Cyprus, opened his address by pointing out that energy policy was at theepicentre of the European construction with two treaties signed in 1951 and 1957 and brieflyoutlined the development of energy policy in Europe until the adoption of the third energy packagein 2009. Over the time the focus had changed to combating climate change and reducing CO2emissions. Energy markets were unstable and characterised by uncertainty due to constantlyincreasing prices and dependency from third countries.Mr KASSINIS informed the meeting about the most updated technical details concerning therecentdiscovery of own natural gas resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of theRepublic of Cyprusand its potential for Europe's future security of supply with energy in view ofthe increasing demand for natural gas in Europe as well as the decrease in internal gas resources.Cyprus had taken the political decision to set up two liquefaction plants and intended to becomethe world's second largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) after Qatar. He also informedthe meeting about plans to create a gas pipeline to Crete and further on to the Athens area as wellas undersea electricity connections to the Peloponnese and Israel. The recently discovered naturalgas resources in the EEZ of Cyprus together with interconnectivity could help diversifyingEurope's energy sources and complete the internal market in energy as thus guarantee security ofenergy supply for the EU, while at the same time reducing the EU's dependency from externalsuppliers.During the ensuing debate 14 speakers took the floor. While there was a general agreement amongspeakers of the need to achieve a long-term sustainable and low-carbon energy production by2050, interventions showed that views among parliamentarians varied broadly as concerns themeans, the roadmap and the energy mix for the next decades. For Example, Mr Christos MESSIS

(CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon)highlighted that decisions in the area of energy had to fall in linewith the long-term strategy of decarbonisation.While many speakers congratulated Cyprus for exploring new fossil energy resources, Mr StefanSCHENNACH (AustrianBundesrat)struck a slightly different note. He made reference to thepotential negative impacts on the Mediterranean environment and the necessity of carbonreduction measures, as well as of energy efficiency. Alternatives to the exploitation of the naturalgas resources in the Mediterranean could be wind energy and photovoltaic energy. This view wasalso supported by Ms Catherine MORIN-DESAILLY (FrenchSénat)who highlighted that in thefight against climate change a different energy supply than that of today based on fossil fuels wasneeded. She advocated an energy mix generated from photovoltaic, bio energy, biomass and waveenergy. Mr Jean BIZET (FrenchSénat)was critical that the chapter on shale gas was closed tooquickly in France and defended the use of nuclear power. Mr MAYER voiced, however, theAustrian opposition to nuclear energy, pointing instead to the use of hydro-electricity, biogas andbiomass as alternatives for his country. Ms Agnieszka POMAKA and Ms Anna FOTYGA (bothPolishSejm)made it clear that their country placed great hopes in the development of shale gaswhich, in awareness of environmental concerns, they wanted to be classified as a clean energysource.Almost all speakers mentioned the need for improved energy infrastructures but again some, forexample Ms FOTYGA, criticised certain specific projects while others like Mr TOSHEVexpressed support for the Connecting Europe Facility to finance trans-European energyinfrastructures but also expressed reservations against this being financed to the detriment ofstructural and cohesion funding. Moreover, MrVISKUPIČ,amongst others, expressed the viewthat Europe needed a fully integrated and interconnected energy market for boosting thecompetitiveness and job creation in Europe. In contrast, Mr MESSIS pointed out that the COSACBi-annual Report showed the various concerns expressed by some national Parliaments in terms ofthe energy infrastructure guidelines proposed by the European Commission.During the debate, a vast diversity of views were also expressed on the role of planning (by the EUor at national level) versus the role of the market forces. Some members like Mr Kelvin HOPKINS(UKHouse of Commons)pointed out that privatisation worked out neither for the consumer norfor the modernisation of the energy sector. He advocated the German, more interventionistapproach to steer energy production through the use of renewable energy sources, and said thisdevelopment had to be driven by the EU. Mr HANSEN took the view that transparency was ofessential importance for energy security with a clear distinction of tasks between authorities andthe industry. Lord Patrick CARTER of Coles (UKHouse of Lords)said this should not be used toexcuse the responsibility of Member States to have sufficient generating capacity to meet theirown domestic needs and of course to pay attention to a realistic roadmap towards sustainability.Mr VESTLUND said that COSAC should have held more discussions about energy efficiency andrenewable energies.In reply, Mr KASSINIS underlined that Cyprus also wants to reduce carbon emissions and for thisreason wanted to replace oil with gas. His main message was that Cyprus' own findings of naturalgas helped in the overall thrust in making Cyprus fully green. According to him, the transformationto a low-carbon energy production in Cyprus was already underway: the country's objective was togenerate 200 MW from renewable energy sources by 2020. By 2013 Cyprus hoped, according tohim, to have 50 MW photovoltaic electricity production up and 92 percent of Cypriot housesshould have a solar water heater. There were also 21 different subsidy programmes to help peopleto preserve energy. He also informed the meeting that Cyprus has already equipped 1.000 houses

with smart grids as a pilot project along with other energy conservation measures. Finally, heexpressed hope that by 2050 technological developments would be such that a low-carboneconomy would be possible. He agreed on the need to use all different sorts of energy includingrenewable energies, while voicing concerns on shale gas and its impact on the environment whichought to be monitored closely to avoid environmental problems.5. Meeting of the Chairpersons of COSACMr STYLIANIDES, Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign and European Affairs(CyprusVouli ton Antiprosopon),informed the Chairpersons that the Cyprus Presidency hadsubmitted the first draft of the Contribution and Conclusions on 26 September. Since then thePresidency had received amendments from national Parliaments and the European Parliament onboth documents. Following a debate, an amended text of the Contribution and Conclusions of theXLVIII COSAC was voted and agreed.

6. Europe 2020 strategy – recovery from the economic crisisKeynote speaker: Ms Pervenche BERÈS, Chairwoman of the Committee on Employment andSocial Affairs of the European Parliament.Ms Pervenche BERÈS, Chairwoman of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of theEuropean Parliament, appreciated the invitation to speak on theEurope 2020 strategywhich shebelieved was one of the essential tools that would help European countries together to find a wayout of the financial crisis. As a consequence of the failed Lisbon strategy the Europe 2020 strategyhad to be brought to life at all levels and the National Reform Programmes (NRP), as the startingpoint for discussion, should enter the public arena and be debated not exclusively between the EPand the Council of Ministers but also in national Parliaments with their governments. She agreedwith President Barroso that the Europeansocial modelwas one of the assets of Europe, and arguedpreserving it was highly relevant to ensuring an end to the current crisis. The Europe 2020 strategymust therefore be adequately funded and specific funding must be earmarked to ensure itssuccessful implementation. Thefive objectivesof the EU2020 strategy were even more topical inthe current crisis because they included, for example, the statement that every single young personneeded to be given a future, it had identified the essential nature of education and training and itaimed to see a 20% decrease in poverty by 2020. In practical terms this meant more proposals suchas the recent"youth guarantee"to implement the strong points of Europe 2020 strategy. Thisproposal was essential for three reasons: to ensure there is not a "lost generation”; to promoteintergenerational solidarity; and to promote competitiveness, based on innovation that the nextgeneration would implement. A correct implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy had to forcepoliticians to correct the EU's internal imbalances. Too many still took a short-term perspectiveand because of that no real balance between the necessary austerity measures and the maintenanceof added value and the capacity for growth had been found.The Europe 2020 strategy was one of the key ways to bring EU added value to the money investedby Member States in the European project. This was why the strategy must be adequately fundedwhich included a recapitalisation of the EIB. The Stability and Growth Pact did not allow the EUto fully tap the potential of the single currency and developed internal macro-economic imbalancesthat caused problems. Ms BERÈS called for the reallocation ofstructural fundsand supported theidea of theFTTas a way to raise EU own resources. She characterised the decision of 11 MemberStates to proceed with the FTT under enhanced cooperation as a crucial breakthrough and arguedthis could anyway be used as a source of finance for EU initiatives, though acknowledged others

thought this would not be possible. The FTT was a means to bring about capital markets regulationand a necessary correction. She re-emphasised the social dimension of the current crisis andproposed that the troika, working with those countries that had required a financial bail out, shouldalso include a member of International Labour Organisation (ILO) to balance its work to pay moreconsideration to the social needs of the people of Europe.26 speakers took the floor during the debate. Many responded to the comments by Ms BERÈS onthe European social model, with some Members agreeing that the EU must not sacrifice the socialmodel due to the reforms taking place, whilst others argued that there was no incompatibilitybetween reforms and maintaining the European social model. Others emphasised the need for themodel to be reformed and modernised to reflect the times. Ms Edit BAUER (European Parliament)said that recent Eurostat indicators showed that the EU was proceeding very slowly in achievingthe goals of the Europe 2020 strategy, especially as regards employment, fighting early schoolleaving and poverty. Ms Maria Helena ANDRE (PortugueseAssembleia da República)emphasised the need for sustainable growth as a key part of the Europe 2020 strategy and said thatthe needs of the citizens could not be met without a strong EU budget. Mr ROBRA pointed to theneed for greater democratic accountability of the Europe 2020 strategy but acknowledged thiswould be difficult in view of the short deadlines and said that the use of cohesion policy budgetshould be flexible and not bound by central guidance.Many Members, including Ms MOLITOR, also spoke of the need for the EU to focus on thepromotion of growth and the creation of jobs, and in particular the need to tackle youthunemployment. Ms Axelle LEMARIE (FrenchAssemblée nationale)said that social inclusionshould be seen as a vector for competitiveness and for stimulating growth. Mr MESSIS said thatthe EU must come out of crisis stronger to be able to compete in the globalised world. Mr CASHcommented that EU countries needed to be more competitive and must invest in education andwarned that recent events had shown that people were dissatisfied with the EU. Mr MarkoPOGACNIK (SlovenianDržavni zbor)said that the European semester was introduced to help therecovery and pointed to the importance of national Parliaments being consulted within the process.Mr Nicola FORMICHELLA (ItalianCamera dei Deputati)said that the European Council inDecember should start looking at measures such as European project bonds.On the FTT, Baroness Detta O’CATHAIN, (UKHouse of Lords)said that she did not think it waspossible to raise own resources within the framework of enhanced coordination and asked howthen the FTT revenue could be used for fighting youth unemployment. Mr NEOFYTOU said thatthe FTT had to be considered carefully due to the possibility that it could lead to negativeconsequences by causing a shift of business out of Europe. Mr Fernand BODEN (LuxembourgChambre des Députés)did not think it was the best solution to the problem and would only cause abreak in financial activity in Europe and argued that other forms of taxation were moreappropriate.Mr Epaminondas MARIAS (GreekVouli ton Ellinon)and other Members were very critical of theaction of the troika for imposing too harsh bailout conditions and said that these were having adetrimental and dramatic impact on citizens.In response, Ms BERÈS said that the EU had not fully exploited the Lisbon Treaty, particularlyArticle 9 TFEU onthe promotion of a high level of employment and the guarantee of adequatesocial protection, and a high level of education and trainingand that more needed to be done inthis regard. She reemphasised that alongside the Europe 2020 strategy an investment strategy wasbadly needed and referred to the IMF's message to combine financial discipline with investments

to avoid a collapse. Unfortunately, instead of implementing the Lisbon strategy by investing ineducation and training during these ten years half of the Member States had reduced theireducation budgets according to OECD figures. She again emphasised her point that the socialmodel must remain beyond the crisis but said that it should of course be modernised. She also saidthat the Commission should look at strategic investments in national reform programmes.Ms BERÈS said that she believed that the FTT revenues could be used by Member States to beable to rectify what is happening nationally, she welcomed any ideas from Mr BAYOT for a bettersystem but had not heard any herself before now. On Greece, BERÈS responded that the troikashould become a quartet to include the ILO so that EU values would be correctly implemented.Ms BERÈS called on national Parliaments to support the objective to earmark 25% of cohesionfunds for the European Social Fund (ESF). She noted that, after two years, the Europe 2020strategy would benefit from the efforts of the European Council to foster a better balance betweengrowth and economic austerity and she believed this would bring greater success in the future. Sheconcluded by emphasising the importance of solidarity, arguing that the Nobel Peace Prize obligedthe EU to act. The EU should listen to the IMF: austerity alone could not get the EU out of thecrisis. It had to be recognised that the free-market forces and the lack of regulation had unleashedthe crisis. Structural reforms must be examined carefully for their implications, the social modelmust be modernised and saved and European values must underpin the situation.

7. Single Market governanceKeynote speaker: Mr Pierre DELSAUX, Deputy Director General, Directorate General, InternalMarket and Services, European Commission.Mr Pierre DELSAUX, Deputy Director General, Directorate General, Internal Market andServices, European Commission, said that in order to find a solution to the crisis a stable financialmarket and an improvement of thebanking systemin Europe were needed, but it was alsonecessary to take into account the aspects of growth and the development of the European marketfor employment. As Europe was not rich in natural resources, Mr DELSAUX argued that the onlyavailable tool for growth was the internal market and it was important that it was continuallyimproved. Theinternal marketwas, of course, not the instant solution to the crisis as it would notstimulate growth from one day to the next, but a whole host of measures would in concert creategrowth.In April 2011, the Commission presented its first act on the Single Market with 12 priority actions.Mr DELSAUX explained that theSingle Market Act I(SMA I) had not only focused on openingup markets, but also touched on the social and environmental dimension of the Single Market. MrDELSAUX said that only one measure had been adopted at European level. The European patent,e-public market and the mobility of workers were examples which were mentioned as importantmeasures that were still being discussed, but which would result in economic gains if they weretransposed.Mr DELSAUX continued by stating that Europe had to move quickly otherwise no effects wouldbe felt for years, something which has led the Commission to adopt aSingle Market Act II(SMAII). He said that the SMA II was based on four common sense priorities, which, if adopted before2014 would be a reality by 2016:

Networks and energy- where focus would be, among other things, on an internalmaritime market, a single European sky and a fully integrated European internal energymarket;Mobility of citizens and enterprisesin which, for example, the EURES portal would bedeveloped into a tool with which people could search for jobs in other Member States andEU’s insolvency rules will be modernised;Digital economywith focus on e-commerce, online payment services and electronicinvoicing in public procurement; andConfidence of the consumers– all EU citizens should have access to a basic bank accountand the costs attached to this should be transparent and comparable.Regarding the issue of governance, Mr DELSAUX explained that measures adopted at EU levelwere transposed with an average delay of nine months (i.e. two years nine months after adoption).At the Council meeting in June the issue ofdirective transpositionhad been discussed and it wassuggested that the Commission should have contact with the Member States immediately after theEU level adoption to avoid the possibility that Member States wait with the transposition until thedeadline had passed. Furthermore a commitment was made for a zero deficit rate for transposition.Mr DELSAUX concluded by explaining that if the Services directive was implemented in allMember States it would have an effect of, for example, 2.5 % GDP growth in Germany and 4% inCyprus.During the ensuing debate, 15 speakers took the floor. There was a general support to thestrengthening of the internal market. Several Members argued that the digital deficit was stillsevere and that a single digital market should be prioritised as it would bring real savings of bothtime and money, as argued by Mr VISKUPIČ. Mr ROBRA encouraged the Commission to presenta proposal for broadband networks. Better conditions for SMEs and improved public procurementrules were other topics which concerned several Members. For example, Mr Carlos SAOMARTINHO (PortugueseAssembleia da República)explained that SMEs were being condemnedas they could no longer get credit. Mr VESTLUND and Mr MORENO called for a solution to theproblem with the Services directive, arguing that better implementation could have direct effect onGDP. Ms Zoi KONSTANTOPOULOU (GreekVouli ton Ellinon)pointed out that the economiccosts of the EU should not exceed the social costs and explained that e-services were good.Baroness O’CATHAIN suggested that two or three of the SMA II actions should be prioritised inthe national Parliaments as they would be able to make a huge impact that way.Mr DELSAUX replied and said that regarding the digital agenda it would not be enough just totalk about it, action was needed and national Parliaments could help by passing that message totheir government. Mr DELSAUX suggested that national Parliaments should contact theirgovernments with concerns on Commission proposals before the texts reached the transpositionstage. Furthermore he said that the link between national Parliaments and the Commission shouldbe boosted.Mr NEOFYTOU ended the debate by saying that the systemic problems was one of the maincauses to the economic crisis, but wrong policies implemented by the states had also played a bigrole. He added that reforms which had been long overdue needed to be implemented, underliningthe importance of the EU and the support it gave, even though it came with strict conditions.

Mr NEOFYTOU presented the final draft of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVIIICOSAC to the meeting. He reported that the documents had been amended during a lively debateand voting in the Chairpersons meeting held the day before. He noted one necessary change in theEnglish version, following a printing mistake, to correct paragraph 5.1 of the Contribution to read,“COSAC reaffirms the need for collective effort in order to effectively tackle the social andeconomic crisis…”A number of Members took the floor. Mr CASH said that the XLVIII COSAC had been held at animportant time when there was much talk in the UK of referendum and said he was increasinglyconcerned about the democratic deficit in Europe.Harry van BOMMEL (DutchTweede Kamer)said that the Dutch delegation was not against theContribution but thought it inappropriate for COSAC to adopt positions on political matters suchas those in paragraphs 2.1 and 5.2 of the Contribution. He expressed the view that COSAC was aforum to exchange views not to adopt such positions. Mr MARIAS wished to have it noted that theContribution and Conclusions would be adopted by those who supported the decisions of COSACbut that the individual positions that each participant had made through his/her intervention duringthe meeting should also be taken into accountLord BOSWELL of Aynho wished to record his personal thanks to the Cyprus Presidency and hishope that COSAC could discuss afresh the subsidiarity check, not just as a legal tool, but as a wayof expressing national views and political concerns, to demand more from national governmentsand European agencies.Mr MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ commented on the positive and fruitful interaction between nationalParliaments and the European Parliament during recent meetings of COSAC and paid tribute to thePolish, Danish and Cyprus Presidencies for making this possible.Hereafter, the conference adopted the text of the draft Contribution and Conclusions of the XLVIIICOSAC as amended by the meeting of the Chairpersons. Once translated into all official languagesof the EU, the Contribution of the XLVIII COSAC will be published in the Official Journal of theEU.Finally, Mr HANNIGAN announced that the next meeting of the COSAC Chairpersons wouldtake place on 27-28 January 2013 and the COSAC plenary meeting would be on 23-25 June 2013,both meetings would take place in Dublin.