Current LatviaTHEME IN FOCUS: Latvian National Convention No. 25, 18 September 2002 NATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPEWORKING GROUP REPORTS from the Second Session of the Latvian National Convention
DEBATES at the Second Session of the Latvian National ConventionFOR MORE INFORMATION
NATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE The Latvian National Convention on the Future of Europe aims to inform the public about the European Convention, as well as contribute to the ongoing public discussion about the European Union and the future of Europe after EU enlargement. The National Convention prepares non-binding guidelines for Latvia's representatives at the European Convention. The National Convention is open to all interested persons. Participants may register by telephoning 750 31 00 (European Integration Bureau) or sending an e-mail to konvents@eib.lv The sessions of the Convention are broadcast live on Radio Latvia 1. Latvia's Prime Minister Andris Berzins and the President of the European Movement - Latvia, Ainars Dimants preside over sessions of the Convention. Representatives of Latvia at the European Convention (Minister for Special Assignment for Co-operation with International Financial Agencies, Roberts Zile; Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, Rihards Piks; Chairman of the European Affairs Committee of the Parliament, Edvins Inkens; and their alternates - Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament, Guntars Krasts; members of the European Affairs Committee, Maris Sprindzuks and Inese Birzniece) take an active part in the organisation and discussions of the National Convention. The steering committee of the National Convention consists of Latvia's representatives at the European Convention, as well as representatives of the European Movement - Latvia, the European Integration Bureau, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The First Session of the Latvian National Convention was held on 9 May 2002 during Europe Week, which has been celebrated in Latvia for last five years. The First Session addressed three topics: Latvia's sovereignty, identity, and role in a future Europe. The discussion brought together more than 200 delegates - people from all over Latvia, representing different nationalities, professions, and interest groups - including: - representatives of national and regional mass media; - academicians, researchers, and lecturers; - representatives of the cultural societies of Latvia's ethnic minorities; - representatives of non-governmental organisations; - members of parliament and government representatives; - local government officials; - entrepreneurs. Most of the speakers emphasised that Latvia's accession to the EU was a question of catching up and maintaining an equal pace of development with other European states. Several delegates also touched upon the forthcoming referendum on accession to the European Union. It was agreed that the National Convention should deal with the main discussion topics of the European Convention. To this end, five working groups have been established and they are chaired by the representatives of the Latvian parliament and government at the European Convention: - Subsidiarity, delimitation of powers (Maris Sprindzuks); - Charter of Fundamental Rights (Inese Birzniece); - The role of national parliaments (Rihards Piks); - Economic governance (Roberts Zile); - Foreign policy and defence (Guntars Krasts). A sixth working group, chaired by Edvins Inkens, was formed to focus on preparations for the referendum on Latvia's accession to the European Union. The deliberations of the working groups are open to public participation. The groups' working papers (in Latvian) are available on the website of the European Integration Bureau (www.eib.lv), which is also the co-ordinating body of the Latvian National Convention. The Second Session of the National Convention on the Future of Europe was held on 22 August 2002. It focused on the results of the working groups' discussions of the National Convention, and debates on these subjects at the European Convention. Debora Pavila, one of Latvia's representatives at the European Youth Convention, held in Brussels in July, presented a report about it to the National Convention's Second Session. Information about the project "Youth 2002" was also provided. This project took place in Denmark, where a thousand young people from all over Europe drew up a draft Constitution of Europe. The next meeting of the National Convention is planned for March 2003.
"Delimitation of powers between the European Union and the Member States" - representative of Latvia at the European Convention, chair of the working group, Maris Sprindzuks First, we agreed that it is important for Latvia to participate in developing a new European architecture and to actively represent our interests within this framework. We feel it is very important not only to join the EU of today but also to help create Europe as we would like to see it. Thus we find it essential to evaluate opportunities and possible threats resulting from change. We need to help shape a Europe which neither threatens Latvian sovereignty nor makes our small nation in some way feel even smaller on the European stage. We need to become a fully-fledged member state and be able to stand up for issues vital for Latvia. We are hardly comparable with Germany or France, but we can be very active and defend our interests if necessary, therefore we need a Europe in which we could make ourselves known, find co-operation and support. Second, we agreed that Latvian representatives at the European Convention have to take precautions. It is easy to side with the opinion of dominant countries, but it is difficult to foresee threats resulting from this or that choice. It is especially true for countries that have not directly experienced the advantages and disadvantages of being a member state. Like other candidate countries, we need time to acknowledge what are the most important issues, to bring about discussion within Latvian society and come up with an opinion that represents the national interest. The National Convention gives us such an opportunity. Thirdly, Latvia does not support the idea of a federal Europe in which it, as a small country, would have less of an influence in Europe. Latvia has favoured the principle that the union obtain only those powers delegated to it by member states. If we were to support a strict distribution of powers, we might lose too much of our sovereignty even before we realised whether it constituted the best solution for Latvia. As regards these issues, there has been no disagreement, either among the representatives of the National Convention or within the working groups. A difference of opinion does exist, however, regarding surveillance of the subsidiarity principle. How should this be organised? One way is to establish a chamber of EU politicians which would ensure that EU legislative functions were not too centralised at the whole-Europe level. Another solution is to delegate powers to the judiciary to supervise subsidiarity; this would mean that independent judges, free of any political influence, would perform the supervisory function. Differences of opinion have meant that this question is still being discussed at the European Convention. Therefore our working group also decided to continue the discussion and find the most favourable model of surveillance for Latvia. "Charter of Fundamental Rights" - representative of Latvia at the European Convention, chair of the working group, Inese Birzniece The European Union should be legally obliged to respect human rights determined by treaties. Accepting this, two questions require answers: 1. Should the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be legally binding for the European Union member states? The working group thinks that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be included in the new European Union fundamental agreement by dividing the charter into three parts: political guidelines (preamble); a part binding for EU institutions, which gives EU nationals and member states the right to limit the power of EU institutions; and a part that is binding for member states. To implement these suggestions without changing the base text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a memorandum determining which articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are legally binding and which are of programmatic nature, is necessary. 2. Should the European Union ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? The working group maintains that the EU should ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as this would provide protection of concrete human rights for individuals. What constitutes Latvia's interests? Latvia is interested in what EU human rights norms are and how they could be implemented in the most effective way. In this respect, one suggestion is to analyse in more detail the relationships between the Constitution (Satversme) of the Republic of Latvia, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other effective international human rights conventions on the one hand, and the norms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the other. "The role of national parliaments" - representative of Latvia at the European Convention, chair of the working group, Rihards Piks An opinion was voiced at the European Convention that national parliaments should participate in the process of formulating EU legislation. How is this to be achieved? Of all the suggestions put forward at the European Convention and also within our National Convention working group, three main positions emerged: a) change the European Parliament into a two-chamber system, where the second chamber is composed of representatives from national parliaments. The second chamber would have no legislative functions, only a control function over the subsidiarity principle, as well as a supervisory function, which would eliminate the situation where political decisions are taken without the consent of national parliaments; b) establish a two-chamber European Parliament, with national government representatives in the second chamber. This would, in fact, mean converting the present EU Council into the second chamber, thus strictly marking off the decision-making functions allotted to the EU Council from the executive functions to be performed by the European Commission. This would also increase the role of the European Parliament in the decision-making process; c) there is no necessity to establish a second chamber in the European Parliament. Thus, the structure of EU institutions would remain unchanged and national parliaments would perform their controlling functions by giving stricter instructions to their government representatives before leaving for EU Council meetings. Such a model already exists in Denmark and, to a large extent, has also been adopted by the Saeima. The European Affairs Committee of the Saeima strictly defines the brief of EU accession negotiators prior to their leaving for Brussels. The proposed model also includes adding conditions to the EU constitutional agreement, stating that there should be combined meetings of European Parliament and national parliament committees when political decisions are drafted. The working group suggested that the European Convention could continue its work into the future, with its functions and session duration set down in any new European Constitution. "Economic governance" - representative of Latvia at the European Convention, chair of the working group, Roberts Zile The National Convention working group on economic governance has agreed upon the following: it is important to represent the interests of Latvia in two areas - harmonisation of direct taxes in EU member states, and formalisation of the Euro Group. On the first point, the working group agreed upon the following: for the time being Latvia cannot support the harmonisation of direct taxes. If this were to occur, each state, Latvia included, would have less individual freedom of action in the sphere of tax policy. The member states would be deprived of an instrument that fosters their national economic growth. Let us consider an example: in order to stimulate manufacturing, some months ago the Latvian government adopted a resolution on gradual decrease of income tax for enterprises. In the event of tax harmonisation, income tax would definitely have to be increased. Harmonisation will influence (in the Latvian context this means increase) local production costs, which will not foster competitiveness in the Common Market. Higher tax rates may hinder investment flows into Latvia. Foreign investors may choose countries with greater labour efficiency, higher concentration of capital and better infrastructure. In Brussels we put forward some more arguments: if the government has to take care of such comparatively expensive areas as education, culture and social policy, the member states must have the right to choose their own tax policies. Since the candidate countries have low accumulations of social capital (pension funds, etc.), social payments will remain high in these countries in future, too. Combined with high direct taxes, we have the makings of a serious burden for entrepreneurs. To put it simply - harmonisation may lead to an increase in income tax rates for the population. Let me remind you - the income tax rate can be as high as 60% and more in some European countries, while in Latvia it is 25%. On the second point, our working group agreed upon the following: Latvia would not be supportive of formalisation of the Euro Group. Since two years is the minimum time Latvia will need to join the euro zone after accession to the EU, formalisation of the Euro Group might result in a situation where Latvia and other countries outside the monetary union are left out of the "euro-club's" decision-making processes on certain questions. EU countries might be divided into two categories, of which one might become dominant. "Foreign policy and defence" - representative of Latvia at the European Convention, chair of the working group, Guntars Krasts The working group discussed the following questions: 1. In addition to the EU's role in the world economy, is it also necessary for the EU member states to increase co-operation on foreign and security policy? The working group was of the opinion that co-operation in the sphere of foreign policy and defence among EU member states has to be increased. However, it was stated that the handover of the foreign policy and defence competencies of national governments to the EU is a complicated and time-consuming process. 2. How can it be guaranteed that Latvia will be able to influence the decision-making process in the EU in the sphere of foreign policy and defence? Which institutional decision-making form would be the most appropriate for Latvia's interests? Should the role of the European Commission or that of the EU Council be increased? The working group agreed that it is necessary to increase the role of the European Commission in the sphere of foreign policy and defence by combining the functions of the European Commissioner for External Relations and the High Representative for CFSP. There should be a single commissioner for foreign affairs. Thus the role of the EU Council in foreign and defence policy would be reduced and that might be advantageous for smaller countries, among them Latvia. The working group agreed not to resign from the unanimity principle in the EU Council concerning foreign policy and defence issues. It would be beneficial for Latvia to promote the role of the EU in crisis management operations (civil, financial crisis, natural disasters, etc.). Since Latvia is not yet a member state and has no direct experience in EU institutions, it is necessary to become aware of issues in foreign and defence policy where Latvia should retain its veto rights. 3. Should the budget of foreign policy and defence be financed from the common EU budget or from the national budgets of the member states? The working group admitted that both the principles present a certain degree of risk to Latvia. - If foreign and defence policy is financed from the common EU budget, it may result in a reduction in finances for regional development, which is of great concern to Latvia. - The existing model of financing - that of financing common initiatives according to a member state's GDP - may present certain difficulties for Latvia when providing financial support for EU foreign and defence policy initiatives, especially while Latvia is on its way towards integration into NATO and a certain amount of funds is allocated for the improvement of state defence. Therefore it would be beneficial for Latvia if initiatives that involve all the member states were financed from the common EU budget, but the initiatives that involve only some countries were financed from their national budgets. The working group suggested that further discussion on this question is needed. 4. Is it necessary to promote further co-operation between the EU and NATO? The working group was of the opinion that it is necessary to facilitate effective co-operation between the EU military forces and NATO. However, there is no need to duplicate NATO. In order to use effectively the funds the EU member states allocate for the development of military forces within the framework of NATO, the military forces of the EU member states should undergo specialisation. It is necessary to continue development of the Rapid Reaction Force. 5. Should the defence of the EU's external borders be regarded as a common EU task? The working group considered that the defence of the EU external borders has to be financed from the common budget, since the safety of the borders is of common interest. 6. How to build EU migration policy? The working group was unified in their opinion that it is necessary to ensure the solidarity of EU member states in implementing migration policy. We put forward the integration of immigrants into one or another EU state as the main guiding principle. Therefore we suggest the following principles for admittance of immigrants into EU member states: The flow of immigrants has to be directed to those countries with 1. a proportionally higher GDP per capita; 2. a proportionally smaller number of immigrants in the population; 3. a proportionally smaller number of foreign citizens and non-citizens in the population. The last of these principles is of great importance for Latvia. The working group expressed hope that accession to the EU might help Latvia to sign treaties on readmission of persons with Belarus and Russia. It might ease potential problems on the Latvian border, caused by illegal immigrants from these countries. "Preparation of the referendum on Latvia's accession to the European Union" - representative of Latvia at the European Convention, chair of the working group, Edvins Inkens 1. At the referendum on Latvia's accession to the European Union, the public should feel itself able to make an informed, conscious decision. 2. A communications campaign to inform society of the advantages and disadvantages of Latvia's EU accession should be organised prior to the referendum. 3. The experience, knowledge and human resources of public administration and NGOs should be mobilised to inform society and stimulate discussion on EU questions. 4. The communications campaign should be vigorous and oriented towards supply of informative material. The primary target audience of the campaign is that part of society not yet confident about how they will vote in the referendum, due to insufficient knowledge of EU issues. 5. The estimate of necessary financial resources should be prepared by the current government. 6. NGOs should participate in supervision of the use of financial resources. 7. Financial resources should be directed neither to partisan "for" or "against" campaigns, but to the preparation and dissemination of truthful and objective information, and promoting discussion. 8. A considerable amount of resources should be directed to the education of journalists on EU issues, as well as to the education of those NGO representatives who represent specific social groups. The Latvian School of Public Administration should train civil servants in generating a dialogue with society on EU issues. 9. The consequences of a "no" vote in the EU accession referendum should be fully and fairly communicated to Latvia's inhabitants. 10. The Saeima should adopt the necessary amendments to normative acts as soon as possible, to create a legal framework for the referendum on Latvia's accession to the EU.
DEBATESPrime Minister Andris Berzins, in his address to participants of the Second Session of the Latvian National Convention on 22 August 2002 repeated the appeal he had already made during the First Session of the Convention i.e. that the referendum on Latvia's accession to the European Union take place on 23 August 2003. On that day more than fifty years ago, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed and Europe was forcibly divided. Andris Berzins said: "Nobody consulted us, nobody asked us. Therefore today the question of how we shape our future is of utmost importance - either we take a risk and remain alone, or we decide to be among other European countries in negotiations about strategically important issues for the future of Europe." The Prime Minister stressed that the National Convention working group meetings are open to all interested persons. Discussions within working groups will be held in future, too. In his speech, the President of the European Movement - Latvia (EML), Ainars Dimants quoted a member of EML, Gundars Abols. Gundars Abols observed that many Latvian citizens, before making their decision in the referendum on EU accession, want to have answers to questions like: Will pensions remain at the same level? How much will fuel cost? What price will we get for our milk? However, the answers to these questions must not determine Latvia's future. The goal of the National Convention is rather broader - to envisage the future of our country in Europe and to try to influence and shape it as we would like to see it. The President of EML invited the Latvian government to develop and carry out an active campaign to inform the population. According to him, it is essential to direct a greater flow of information to the Latvian countryside. Ainars Dimants appealed to the government to develop a programme of financial support for non-governmental organisations, which inform society about the EU, as these organisations have been very successful in making contacts with the rural population. Maris Sprindzuks, chair of the National Convention's working group "Delimitation of powers between the European Union and the Member States", pointed out that the question of finding a balance between a federal EU structure as opposed to a union of nation-states is one of the most complicated issues being debated at the European Convention. Debates about delimitation of powers between member states and different EU structures will help form a framework for a future model of the EU. Latvian representative at the European Youth Convention, Debora Pavila reported to the National Convention about the work of the European Youth Convention and the project "Youth 2002". According to Debora Pavila, young people in Europe have a wide variety of political views. The two models of a future Europe put forward at the Youth Convention - a federal Europe or a union of nation-states - demonstrate this. Young people from the candidate countries supported the existing model of co-operation among EU member states. Inese Birzniece chaired the working group on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. She informed the participants of the Convention about the development of human rights within the EU. The working group was of the opinion that the Charter of Fundamental Rights has to be included in the fundamental agreement by dividing it into three parts (see the report of the working group chaired by Inese Birzniece). It would be advantageous for the EU to ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - however, this might take some time. The working group agreed that in Latvia there is need for a working group which would examine the contiguity between human rights embraced in the Latvian Constitution and various international documents, in order to specify human rights norms and ways of putting them into practice. Cardinal Janis Pujats commented upon the significance of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. He expressed his support for the Charter. However, he suggested that there is too little said about spiritual rights. Thus the Charter would strengthen the materialistic nature of the EU but not spirituality. The Cardinal announced that the secretariat of the European Bishops' Conference sees it as essential that the EU constitutional agreement ensure the possibility of a constructive dialogue between EU institutions and the church. Latvian representatives at the European Convention should support such a proposal, he said. Representative of the Roman Catholic Church Karlis Cerans pointed out that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should not just be a declarative statement - it should also be given status in law. Dainis Lasmanis, a member of the board of the European Movement - Latvia, supported the contention that the Charter of Fundamental Rights has to become a legally binding document. He said that the European Youth Convention's final document and the draft Constitution of Europe of the youth forum "Youth 2002" agree that the Charter of Fundamental Rights has to become a principle part of the future treaty and must have legal force. The working group "The role of national parliaments" offered three possible ways to increase political control by parliaments and to ensure observance of the subsidiarity principle (see the report of the working group chaired by Rihards Piks). The chair of the working group, Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, Rihards Piks recommended the third option. This option proposes giving more control to national parliaments over the brief of government delegates before they leave for EU Council meetings. This model successfully functions in Scandinavia countries, and is being put into practice in Latvia within the context of accession negotiations. Rihards Piks mentioned the drawbacks of establishing a second chamber in the European Parliament. The two main deficiencies of the two-chamber model are unclear delineation of responsibilities and extension of an already lengthy legislative process. Peteris Elferts, Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, shared this opinion. He acknowledged that the establishment of a second chamber would weaken the role of the European Parliament, and legislative procedures would become more complicated. Senior Administrator of the European Commission, Eduards Bruno Deksnis stated that the establishment of a second chamber would not be beneficial, as it would weaken the role of the elected European Parliament. The Parliament would return to its initial function as an advisory assembly. Eduards Bruno Deksnis pointed out that many EU countries with a two-chamber parliament are moving towards a single-chamber system. According to Rihards Piks, it is necessary to ensure two types of control over decision-making in the EU. First, political control, that could be close to the existing model of parliamentary control in Latvia. Peteris Elferts stated that the Latvian Constitution also ensures this kind of control. Second, legal control, which could be ensured by establishing a chamber subordinated to the EU Court with a particular area of responsibility. Rihards Piks informed the participants of the Convention, the working group has made a proposal that the European Convention should continue its work also after 1 March 2003. Chair of the "Economic governance" working group, Minister for Special Assignment for Co-operation with International Financial Agencies, Roberts Zile reported that the working group had agreed on the following: Latvia cannot support the harmonisation of direct taxes. If such harmonisation took place, the income tax for enterprises would have to be increased, but this would in no way favour the development of the Latvian economy. The resolution to reduce income tax in Latvia, adopted just a few months ago, proves that there are differences between Latvia and the EU on an appropriate strategy for tax policy development. Rector of the Ventspils University College, Janis Vucans acknowledged that Latvia couldn't approve of income tax harmonisation. He expressed the opinion that most of the EU member states agree with Latvia. However, in the course of further integration within the EU, discussions about tax harmonisation might start afresh and harmonisation might take place. Another issue discussed in the "Economic governance" working group was that of the rights of euro zone countries (the countries which have joined the single currency - the euro); namely, whether they will have greater influence in economic policy formation compared to other countries. The working group agreed that such a situation would be unacceptable, as it could lead to the division of the EU countries into two groups. This would by no means facilitate the economic and political development of the EU. The "Foreign policy and defence" working group, chaired by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Saeima, Guntars Krasts agreed that the extension of co-operation at the European level in the sphere of foreign and defence policy would be advantageous for Latvia, but that further distribution of powers in these spheres is a very complicated, time-consuming and politically sensitive process. Associate Professor of the University of Latvia, Zaneta Ozolina touched upon several problems that hinder the further development of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. It would be very important for Latvia to determine its attitude towards the development of a European foreign and security policy and specify what aspects we are prepared to integrate. The working group agreed that, in order to ensure Latvia's influence on formulation of EU foreign and security policy after its accession to the EU, it would be beneficial to strengthen the role of the European Commission in foreign and security policy development. In this way, the role of the EU Council would decrease, which would be advantageous for smaller states. It would be in Latvia's interests to strengthen the EU role in crisis management operations. In order to achieve this, the formation of the Rapid Reaction Force should continue. Another principal issue is the financing of EU foreign and security policy. This is of particular concern for Latvia, as more and more funds are allocated to state defence as part of integration into NATO. The "Foreign and defence policy" working group discussed migration policy at the EU level and came to the conclusion that this issue requires a common approach in all EU member states (see the report of the working group chaired by Guntars Krasts). Official Gazette of the Republic of Latvia "Latvijas Vestnesis" (27.08.2002, 29.08.2002, 30.08.2002, 04.09.2002)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
European Integration Bureau Address: Basteja bulv. 14, Riga Telephone: (+371) 750 31 00 Fax: (+371) 728 66 72 E-mail: konvents@eib.lv
USEFUL LINKS Agenda of the Second Session of the Latvian National Convention on the Future of Europe: http://www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=526 Fact sheet on the Latvian National Convention on the Future of Europe: http://www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=4444 European Convention: http://european-convention.eu.int/ European Youth Convention: http://www.youth-convention.net/ Debate on the Future of the European Union: http://europa.eu.int/futurum/
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
