The European Convention is entering a busy time.
On the 17-18 March the Plenary met to present draft articles 38-40 on the Union Finances and article 31 on the area of Freedom, Security and Justice and to debate the protocols on the principles of subsidiarity and proporcionality (Summary report of the meeting)
The Convention met in an informal plenary session on 26 March 2003 to discuss the tabled amendments to the first 7 draft articles initially presented by the Praesidium in early February.
As you are all aware, more than 1000 amendments were tabled by 17 February and this led to the Praesidium allocating two informal dates for the discussions, 5 March for articles 8-16 (summary report of the meeting) and 26 March (for articles 1-7).
The meeting on 26 March was very strange in the sense that for the first time, no observers were allowed into the meeting for the first hour.
This was officially because there were Parliament Committees taking place at the same time and therefore no ’listening’ rooms were available.
This also meant that many MEP members of the Convention did not take part in the debate because they were involved in regular Parliament commitments. However, the exclusion of civil society for the first part of the debate is a disturbing precedent.
Once observers were allowed in, the only mention of public health came from Paolo PONZANO who is the alternate to Commissioner Antonio Vittorino. Mr Ponzano stated that Public Health should be included in Article 3.
For your information, the joint legal services of the Commission, Parliament and Council have issued a ’technical’ support document for the drafting process by the Convention.
This document is available on the Convention website: Volume I and Volume II, and addresses all of the existing articles of the Amsterdam Treaty with some comments on how they might be revised.
EPHA invites any organisation with legal expertise to look at this document and share any comments with our mailing list.
The plenary debate on articles 1 to 16 has now closed and this means that the members of the Praesidium have to go back to their desks and write a NEW TEXT taking into account all that has been said in the last few weeks.
On Tuesday 1st of April, Mr Dehaene, Vice-President of the Convention, speaking to the representatives of the Civil Society, responded to questions posed by EPHA on the work programme of the Praesidium and the status of Health on article 3 (objectives) and article 12 (shared competences).
Second Draft Text by Mid May
Mr Dehaene explained that the Praesidium is now writing a second draft text that will be ready by the second half of May.
This draft text will allow NEW AMENDMENTS from the members of the Convention, however, a FINAL TEXT IS DUE BY THE BEGINNING OF JUNE, therefore only RELEVANT amendments will be taken into account.
Mr Dehaene repeated numerous times the word CONSENSUS: the final text will be the result of the consensus of the convention members, therefore the amendments that will be admitted to this second draft text will have to seek consensus, because the Convention works by consensus, and if there is consensus the Member States will have an easier job to take the draft on board in the IGC.
Article 3: Objectives of the Union - Where is public health?
Regarding the inclusion of Public Health in article 3 (objectives of the Union): Mr Dehaene confirmed that the second draft will take into account the Conclusions of the Working Group on Social Europe, the amendments tabled by the members of the Convention to the draft articles and the oral contributions in the plenary sessions.
This is a positive statement because the Social Europe Working Group and many amendments delivered in early February 2003 supported the inclusion of Public Health as an objective of the Union (Article 3). Mr Dehaene noted that the debate in the Praesidium has not yet reached this article.
Article 12: Shared competences - what happens to public health if they decided to delete the list of competences?
As explained in previous briefing notes, the plenary debate has been divided about whether to have a full list of policy areas in this article (which risks being long, complex and not ’reader-friendly) or just to have a simple statement about thew difference between EU and national competence.
The first draft of Articles 1-16 presented by the Praesidium on 7 February 2003 included Public Health as a shared competence. This was supported by numerous amendments and oral interventions.
However, a few members of the Convention specifically requested that the ’list’ approach be abandoned. If the list of policy areas is eventually removed, Public Health will not figure in the resulting Article 12. Mr Dehaene insisted in his pursuit for CONSENSUS.
The Praesidium will draft this article in the best way possible to reach the higher consensus. It is not about the lowest common denominator and it will not be done by voting, it will be the highest consensus possible.
What happens after the Convention finishes its work?
Mr Dehaene underlined the following points : The Convention is not an IGC but it will lead to one. If the Convention wants to influence the IGC they need to find CONSENSUS.
It is an oversimplification to say that everything is possible in the Convention and nothing will be possible in the IGC.
Everybody has to make concessions, it is true that the Convention is more dynamic in its processes but one cannot demand too much. Some members of the Praesidium are thinking about the possibility of holding Referenda on the Constitutional text in the Member States.
EPHA’s action
Before the Praesidium issues its new draft articles, we will prepare a letter to send to all members of Praesidium to encourage them to insert Public Health in article 3 and to keep Public Health in article 12.
After the Praesidium has issued its new draft articles, we will prepare a letter to send to all members of the Convention to encourage them to respect the positive aspects of the new draft articles and to amend the negative aspects.
