Communication from the Commission on the future of the European Union - European Governance - Renewing the Community method
Date: 2001-12-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union, European integration, deepening of the European Union, enlargement of the Union, revision of the Treaty (EU)

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 5.12.2001
COM(2001) 727 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
ON THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE

RENEWING THE COMMUNITY METHOD

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
ON THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE

RENEWING THE COMMUNITY METHOD

The Laeken European Council will open a new phase of European integration.

Created  for  six  Member  States,  the  European  Union  today  has  15;  in  the  future  it  could
contain  up  to  30  countries.  Its  horizons  have  broadened:  the  single  currency,  justice  and
security, foreign policy and defence have been added to economic action. 50 years of history
have been 50 years of solid achievement. The results are there, as shown by the example of
the  euro,  but  overall  coherence  has  gradually  been  lost.  The  very  success  of  the
reconciliation between the peoples of Europe, which was at the origin of the European project,
has  made  us  lose  sight  of  the  initial  political  ambition.  The  people,  to  whom  Europe  has
brought  peace,  stability  and  wellbeing,  are  faced  with  machinery  which  they  do  not
understand.

At  the  same  time,  the  world  has  changed:  exchanges  have  multiplied,  and  the  developed
countries have become richer, particularly through the development of new technologies. But
inequalities  between  and  within  States  are  increasing,  and  the  environment  is  deteriorating.
The attacks on  11  September  have  highlighted  the  vulnerability  of  democracy  and  freedom.
Only integration can enable Europeans to have an influence on the world, provided that they
speak  with  a  single  voice.  To  meet  these  new  challenges,  the  States  and  peoples  of  Europe
must come closer together.

To these objective factors of change must be added the enlargement of the Union. In Nice, in
December  2000,  the  Member  States  took  the  technical  decisions  required  to  ensure  the
accession of new States. But neither the meaning of European integration nor the full extent of
what we want to do together have been debated. In fact, the changes wrought by the Treaty of
Nice will not  be commensurate, in the  medium  and  long term, with  the requirements  of the
European project in the enlarged Union. The heads of state or of government therefore agreed,
in Nice, to embark on new reforms, to be preceded by a wide-ranging debate.

The first months of debate have shown that citizens attach importance to maintaining cultural
diversity,  defending  and  promoting  common  values,  and  the  European  social  model.  They
want  Europe  to  play  an  active  international  role.  We  therefore  need  to  respond  to  an
expectation of a Europe which is more complete and with more clearly defined aims.

The Laeken European Council is called upon to take the appropriate initiatives to pursue this
process.  One  of  these  will  be  to  organise  a  convention  to  prepare  for  future  reforms  of  the
Union  treaties.  This  is  a  major  innovation,  championed  for  some  months  by  the  European
Parliament and by the Commission, and it will bring together representatives of the Member
States and of the Commission, and European and national elected representatives.

2

The Commission considers that the task of the convention is to define credible guidelines
so  that  an  enlarged  Europe  is  capable  of  pursuing  political,  economic  and  social
integration.

The Commission will make the necessary contributions to the work of this convention, firmly
believing  that  the  European  Union  can  remain  faithful  to  its  history,  but  that  it  has  to
modernise. For the Commission, the aim of future reforms is to renew the "Community
method". Reflecting a Union of States and of peoples, this method provides a framework
which  is  both  supranational  and  yet  mindful  of  the  States  which  make  up  the  Union.  It
combines negotiation between States, expression of the will of the people, and the operation
of  strong  and  lasting  institutions.  In  its  White  Paper  on  European  Governance,  the
Commission  had  already  proposed  a  number  of  measures  to  be  applied  in  advance  of  the
treaty reform, aimed at "reinvigoration of the Community method". It intends to give further
thought to this in the context of the institutional debate.

In  the  new  phase  beginning  in  Laeken,  which  is  novel  with  regard  to  the  treaties,  the
Commission  will  assert  the  Community  spirit  in  order  to  bring  out  the  general  European
interest,  over  and  above  national  interests  and  short-term  concerns.  It  will  defend  a  certain
idea of Europe: demanding, modern but faithful to the original principles on which its success
is built.

This  communication  simply  sets  out  the  way  in  which  the  Commission  is  approaching  the
Laeken European Council. It would like the Laeken declaration to specify how and in what
spirit the members of the convention  are to  work,  so that  the  debates  provide  an  answer  to
two  fundamental  questions:  what  do  we  want  to  do  together?  And  how  do  we  strengthen
democratic legitimacy and make Europe's institutional system more effective?

To answer these questions, Europe's  leaders  will need  to demonstrate  genuine  political will.
The achievements of European integration, the expectations of citizens and the requirements
of  globalisation  clearly  show  that  the  only  way  is  to  push  ahead  with  the  process  of  deeper
integration  –  in  a  manner  that  is  resolutely  political  and  democratic.  The  Commission  will
contribute accordingly to the work of the convention.

ANOTHER WAY OF BUILDING EUROPE

The  future  European  Union  will  not  be  built  without  the  support  of  its  citizens,  or  the
commitment  of  national  and  European  politicians,  who  need  to  explain  the  added  value  of
Europe  –  though  the  low  level  of  participation  in  European  elections  throughout  Europe
shows a degree of indifference towards the European institutional system.

It is therefore necessary to base future institutional reforms on the broadest possible consensus
right  from  the  beginning.  The  declaration  appended  to  the  Nice  Treaty  called  for  a  wide-
ranging,  in-depth  debate.  An  informal  network  of  interested  organisations,  a  true  forum  on
the future of Europe, will help to focus the thinking on future institutional reforms. For this
approach to succeed, the Commission recommends setting up as of now an operational link
between this forum and the future convention tasked with preparing these reforms.

If the Laeken Council European confirms the guidelines from the informal meeting in Ghent,
a  convention  will  be  organised  at  the  beginning  of  next  year.  It  will  bring  together
representatives of the governments and national parliaments of the fifteen Member States and

3

of  the  applicant  countries,  and  representatives  of  the  European  Parliament  and  European
Commission.  It  is  important  that  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  takes  on  the  role  of
active observer within the convention, together with the Committee of the Regions. This will
enable the convention to be accessible to debate through the forum on the future of the Union,
and at the same time open to the concerns of the regions of Europe.

The  convention  bears  the  responsibility  for  showing  that  the  European  Union  can
restructure itself. Failure  is  not an option. While listening  to what Europe expects, it  must
show  that  it  can  produce  credible  proposals  for  deepening  the  European  project  and
strengthening the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of our institutions. The result of the
convention must be at the level of what is at stake. If that is so, the Commission will be the
first  to  ask  that  it  be  adopted  by  the  intergovernmental  conference  which  will  revise  the
treaties.

The Commission therefore recommends paying particular attention to the organisation of
the  convention  which,  although  based  on  the  formula  used  for  drawing  up  the  charter  of
fundamental rights, has broader and more political aims. To chair the convention, the choice
should of course go to a person with unchallenged European authority, who will make regular
progress  reports  to  the  European  Council.  For  reasons  of  effectiveness,  he  will  need  to  be
assisted  by  a  restricted  praesidium  and  an  operational  secretariat.  Experience  in  negotiating
the charter of fundamental rights shows that working by consensus is worthwhile and obviates
the need to seek unanimity. The Commission feels, however, that dominant trends and more
isolated positions must be brought out, so as to preserve the quality of the work done by the
convention.  It  is  important  that  the  future  intergovernmental  conference  be  handed
recommendations  which  are  as  ambitious,  operational  and  coherent  as  possible.  The
Commission will not be satisfied with a watered-down consensus.

The Commission will make proposals to feed into the work of the convention. It stresses the
importance  of  concluding  the  intergovernmental  conference  before  the  European
elections  in  2004,  to  avoid  having  elections  in  progress  while  reform  of  the  treaties  is  still
going on, against a background of uncertainty as to the future development  of  the European
Union and its institutions.

THE CHALLENGE OF FUTURE REFORMS

The Nice declaration pinpoints, inter alia, four questions that should be addressed: the role of
national  parliaments,  simplification  of  the  treaties,  the  status  of  the  charter  of  fundamental
rights,  and  a  more  precise  delimitation  of  powers  between  the  European  Union  and  the
Member States. These are important questions, but are not enough to convey the challenge of
the future reforms. How can we address the delimitation of powers without asking  what  the
Member  States  of  the  Union  want  to  do  together?  How  can  we  examine  the  role  of  the
national  parliaments  without  a  broader  approach  to  the  legitimacy  and  effectiveness  of  the
European  institutions?  Adopting  a  narrow  approach  to  the  four  themes  identified  in  Nice
would  undermine  the  credibility  of  the  convention.  For  this  reason,  the  Commission
considers that the Laeken declaration should broaden the scope of the questions. During
the  convention,  account  must  be  taken  of  the  public  debates,  and  all  members  of  the
convention must be able to present contributions on points which they consider relevant.

4

Consolidating the European project

Whether they relate to economic and social progress, strengthening the Union's international
presence,  protecting  citizens'  rights,  establishing  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  or
developing the common acquis, the main aims set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European
Union  are  not  generally  at  issue.  However,  opinions  sometimes  differ  as  to  how  to  achieve
these aims, as is shown by the resistance to getting rid of the right of veto or by the exceptions
and derogations from the current treaties.

Enlargement will increase differences within the Union, simply by increasing the number of
Member  States.  The  convention  will  be  unable  to  avoid  some  discussion  of  joint  measures.
There  is  of  course  no  question  of  asking  the  convention  to  plot  the  future  course  of  our
common policies. According to the procedures laid down in the treaties, the Commission will
continue to propose to the legislature those changes it considers necessary.

But the convention will no doubt have to assess whether the Union has the appropriate means
to  achieve  its  aims.  All  are  agreed  in  asking  the  European  Union  to  tackle  international
monetary and financial discussions coherently, but are we really organised enough to set out
our positions in a definite and, above all, stable manner? The same applies to foreign policy,
where the importance of speaking with a single voice does not need to be emphasised. With
regard to economic and tax policies, saveguarding of the European social model, or police and
legal  cooperation,  do  the  treaties  enable  us  to  act  in  our  best  interests?  When  it  comes  to
protecting the  financial interests  of  the Communities,  some agree  with the Commission that
there could be a case for establishing a European Public Prosecutor.

The Commission uses these examples only to underline that it is worthwhile examining our
instruments, methods and organisation in order to assess whether they make it possible to
achieve the very general aims laid down in the Treaty and which are subscribed to by all the
Member States.

This advance discussion of the European project will be particularly useful for specifying in
what  spirit  and  with  what  aims  the  convention  should,  as  the  Nice  declaration  requests,
establish  and  maintain  a  more  precise  delimitation  of  powers,  in  accordance  with  the
principle  of  subsidiarity.  The  collective  interest  requires  that  the  results  and  overall
coherence of 50 years of European integration should not be called into question. But we
are fully justified, as the European project matures, in examining closely the current situtation
with  regard  to  our  powers  in  order  to  refocus  them  if  necessary.  It  would  in  any  event  be
worthwhile seeking as rational a presentation as possible of the respective responsibilities of
the  Union  and  the  Member  States  and  clarifying  them.  It  will  be  necessary  to  look  at  how
those  powers  are  exercised  and  how  compliance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and
proportionality is achieved.

The  Union  only  exercises  powers  because  the  treaties,  ratified  by  each  Member  State  in
accordance  with  its  national  procedures,  have  assigned  tasks  to  it  and  the  resources  to  act.
Where it does not have exclusive competence, the Union must comply with the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality, i.e. acting judiciously and to the extent strictly necessary for
achieving the set aims. This method is not contested.

However,  neither  the  way  these  principles  are  translated  into  the  different  provisions  of  the
treaties nor the way they are applied follow a uniform logic. In the general interest, the Union
gears its action to what is needed, and it is difficult to describe theoretically the extent of the

5

powers  exercised  by  the  Union  in  those  areas  where  the  Member  States  also  retain
competence.  Having  lists  of  powers  might  risk  hampering  subsequent  developments  in  the
construction of Europe. The Commission therefore recommends paying particular attention to
monitoring  the  principles  of  proportionality  and  subsidiarity  which  require  action  to  be
taken at the most appropriate level.

Furthermore, the convention should examine the way in which the treaties attribute powers, as
well as the decision-making procedures and legal instruments laid down for exercising them.
It  would  therefore  be  possible  to  produce  models  for  the  attribution  of  powers  and  to
rationalise  them.  The  Union  would  thereby  have  a  number  of  models  for  adapting  the
current distribution  of  powers between the Union and the  Member States  to  that  required
for developing the European project.

Being  itself  linked  to  the  design  of  the  European  project,  the  simplification  of  the  treaties
should make it possible to bring together in one basic text the essential provisions of the
treaties. A second document would bring together the other provisions. The Commission took
a position in  this regard in  its  communication of 12 July  20001, relating to the study  by  the
European  University  Institute  in  Florence.  A  basic  treaty  to  this  design  would  be  more
readable,  and  having  this  separation  would  make  it  possible  to  have  simplified  revision
procedures, something which is essential for a European Union which will soon have some
30 Member States.

Simplification cannot in itself call into question the political choices which inspired those
who drafted the treaties. It has to be recognized that some of these choices make our treaties
particularly complex. Obviously, there are an excessive number of instruments and decision-
making  procedures,  exceptions  and  derogations  granted  to  some  Member  States,  or  the
coexistence  of  Community  procedures  and  others  whose  inspiration  is  intergovernmental.
However,  the  Commission  does  not  exclude  that  the  work  of  the  convention  might  lead  to
review  some  of  these  options.  It  would  therefore  be  necessary  to  clarify  these  political
parameters before the work of simplification begins.

The  charter  of  fundamental  rights  should  find  a  place  in  the  reorganised  treaties.  A  text
solemnly  reaffirming  the  rights  and  freedoms  already  resulting  from  the  constitutional
traditions  of  the  Member  States  and  their  international  and  European  obligations  could  not
have any other status. Although some technical questions deserve closer examination, such an
operation  will  give  our  treaties  great  political  coherence  and  an  architecture  with  a  simple
logic which people will understand.

With the clarification of powers, the simplification of the treaties and the incorporation of the
charter of fundamental rights into the Community's legal system, a constitutional process has
started.  The  Commission  considers  it  worthwhile,  after  50  years  of  building  Europe,  to
examine  the  possibility  of  giving  the  Union  a  basic  text  and  discuss  the  procedures  for
adopting and revising such a text.

1

A  basic  treaty  for  the  European  Union  –  Commission  communication  of  12  July  2000  (COM  (2000)
434).

6

                                                
Strengthening  the  democratic  legitimacy  and  effectiveness  of  the  European  institutional
system

What  institutions  does  the  European  project  need?  The  Community  system  is  largely
satisfactory in meeting the needs of the Union as it stands, but it merits examination from the
twin  aspects  of  democratic  legitimacy  and  effectiveness.  In  this  regard,  the  Commission
considers  that  the  convention  could  not  study  the  role  of  the  national  parliaments  without
asking about the democratic legitimacy of our common institutions and the balance which
must be maintained between them.

The  European  Parliament's  legislative  role  should  be  consolidated,  and  procedures  for
electing MEPs should be adapted as the Treaty now lays down, taking care to bring voters and
MEPs  closer  together  and  strengthening  the  role  of  the  European  political  parties.  The
Council's legislative function should be more clearly identified. A first, very easy step would
entail  making  a  visible  and  transparent  distinction  between  the  Council's  legislative  and
executive functions. Meetings of the Council, when exercising its legislative functions, should
be open to the public. The Commission, meanwhile, must concentrate on strategic tasks while
affirming its power of initiative. The advantages and disadvantages of a possible change in the
way  the  President  of  the  Commission  is  appointed  should  be  precisely  assessed,  keeping  in
mind  the  very  particular  role  the  current  system  assigns  to  the  Commission  in  the  general
interests of Europe.

The  question  of  the  role  of  the  national  parliaments  will  need  to  form  part  of  this  overall
discussion.  Today,  the  national  parliaments  authorise  the  ratification  of  the  treaties.  Their
participation in the convention will involve them at an early stage in the process of revising
the  treaties.  They  also  exert  a  degree  of  control,  depending  on  national  traditions,  on  the
government  representatives  in  the  Council.  The  protocol  appended  to  the  Treaty  of
Amsterdam  has  improved  the  information  given  to  national  parliaments  on  Community
legislative proposals.

Further improvements should be made to these systems, seeking the most effective means,
at  both  national  and  Community  level,  to  make  the  national  parliaments  more  involved  in
European  decisions.  But  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  Community  system  must  be
preserved, which would not be the case if a new legislative chamber were to be set up.

With regard to effectiveness, the scope of majority decision-making needs to be extended,
which the Treaty of Nice did not really accomplish.

The same concern for effectiveness means that the respective roles of our various institutions
need to be clarified, restoring, within the institutional system, a true executive function and
improving  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  in  the  preparation  and  implementation  of
common  policies.  Clarification  of  what  actually  belongs  in  the  legislative  area  is  also
necessary, so that the European legislature applies itself to defining general standards without
codifying in detail the procedures for implementing them.

As  far  as  the  functioning  of  the  institutions  is  concerned,  the  European  Commission  has
undertaken a major reform of its administration, which will need to be extended to include the
College  of  Commissioners  when  the  Treaty  of  Nice  enters  into  force  and  the  number  of
members of the Commission increases. Improving the operation of the Council forms part
of  the  necessary  reforms.  The  convention  should  also  discuss  the  role  of  the  European

7

Council, which should refocus its work on its task of issuing general guidelines and prepare
them in a more transparent and more collective way within the institutional framework. These
reforms  of  the  institutions'  working  methods  do  not  necessarily  require  amendment  of  the
treaties,  and  the  White  Paper  on  European  Governance  underlined  the  importance  of
beginning right now to improve the functioning of the Union.

CONCLUSION

The relevance of the European project, arising from the global conflicts of the 20th century,
remains valid. People tend to have certain doubts and uncertainties with regard to Europe but,
as the  public  debate  shows,  they  feel  strongly  the  need  for  common  policies.  They  look  for
European  responses  and  want  a  better-organised  Europe  to  meet  the  challenges  of
globalisation  or  deal  with  international  crises,  a  Europe  which  is  on  top  of  migratory
movements, a Europe more coherent in terms of economic and employment policy.

The European Union has the capacity to respond to these expectations, through  the  political
will  of  its  leaders,  expressed  at  the  highest  level  at  meetings  of  the  European  Council,  and
through  a  very  specific  institutional  system  governed  by  legal  rules  and  procedures,  where
European issues are the subject of debates open to all and of decisions binding on all.

today's  Europe, 

the  Community  method  has  moved  away 

For  building 
from
intergovernmental  frameworks,  without  applying  to  the  common  European  institutions
national models which would be inappropriate given the diversity of constitutional traditions
in  the  Member  States.  It  has  proved  its  effectiveness  and  must  preserve  it.  It  must  gain  in
terms of democratic legitimacy. Future reforms of the treaties will therefore need to look at
renewing  the  Community  method.  The  Commission  will  contribute  to  the  work  of  the
convention, with the general interest in mind and in accordance with the role conferred upon it
by the treaties.

________________

8