The views of SAK, STTK and AKAVA on the Intergovernmental Conference on the reformation of the EU and on the Nice summit of 7^th—8^th December 2000

I. General

The Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which is engaged in reforming the structures of the European Union, is scheduled to reach its conclusion at the Nice Summit on the 7^th and 8^th of December 2000. Expectations for the outcome of this Summit are exceptionally high, as the purpose is to create the basis upon which the enlargement of the Union, to include the former Central and East European countries, will be enabled. It is forecast, in the so called enlargement strategy paper, which was issued by the Commission on 8^th November 2000, that accession negotiations with the first applicant countries may be concluded as early as in the year 2002.

Not all of the current structures of the Union are best suited to serve a large number of Member States, and there is the danger that the activities of the EU would, at least partially, be slowed down, or even become paralysed, should no reforms be implemented. Decision making should be both efficient and sufficiently speedy, as the alternative is that the EU will be unable to respond to the challenges which are presented by globalisation and by the constant increase in international competition. The Union should be equally able to fulfil the needs both of the population in general and of those who are in employment.

The implementation of the internal market and the adoption both of economic and monetary union, EMU, and of the euro in 2002, in conjunction with the continuing expansion of the activities of the Union into new sectors, and more particularly the deepening of integration and the desire for closer cooperation between the Member States, all call for reform in the functioning of the EU. In addition to these considerations, the debate on the European federal state has been opened both on a European and a Finnish level. Notwithstanding the results of the debate on federalism, the forthcoming Summit will lay down the future of the EU over the longer term.

The structures of the EU cannot simply remain as they are at present. For this reason alone the Nice Summit must be able to accomplish a sufficient degree of reform. Should it be found impossible to achieve adequately far-reaching reform in Nice, it will be very likely that additional changes will, prior to the enlargement of the European Union, still be required.

II. Charter of Fundamental Rights

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is one of the most significant steps towards the improved rights of the citizens within the EU. This Charter is particularly important within the context of the Eastern enlargement of the Union. Therefore SAK, the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions; STTK, the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees; and AKAVA, the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland, call for the approval, at the Nice Summit, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and for the Charter to be made legally binding. A mere political declaration will not suffice.

The Finnish Government should support the above views and fulfil the expectations of a "citizens' Europe" actually coming into existence. The time has come to create a "fifth pillar" which would function alongside the freedom of movement of capital, of goods, of services and of workers. Signing the human rights charter of the Council of Europe may serve as a complementary measure, but it should not be taken as an alternative undertaking. The European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC, is unanimously of the opinion that the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights should be adopted and held as binding, and that it should be added to the Treaty.

In addition to the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, its contents should be improved. In its present form the Charter of Fundamental Rights is barely satisfactory. Various limiting references, for example to Community law and practices, present a frequent problem for the definition of the economic and social rights contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 27, on informing and consulting employees and Article 28, on the right to collective agreements and industrial action, can be cited here as examples. Such limitations should be removed and the cross-border rights of unionisation, of collective agreements and of strike action should be clearly stated. The Treaty Article 137.6, in which the application of Article 137 in its entirety, to wages, to the right to unionise, the right to take industrial action and to the right to order the imposition of embargoes, causes confusion with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The rights to unionisation, to negotiating and to taking industrial action should be added to Article 136 of the Treaty.

Should the Charter of Fundamental Rights not be adopted as being binding, at the Nice Summit, work on a review of its status and on improvements to its contents should be commenced as soon as possible. Any steering group, which might be established for this purpose, should work openly and should follow a clear schedule. The Nice Summit should also, if necessary, take a decision upon the matter.

III. Reform of the Institutions of the European Union

1. Starting points

SAK, STTK and AKAVA wish to emphasise that a balance between the smaller and the larger Member States, the efficiency of decision making and transparency should serve as the starting points for any issues which concern the Institutions. In our opinion there is no need to alter the relative power of the Institutions of the Union, for example between the Council of Europe, the Commission and the European Parliament.

2. Commission

The Commission should have, at least at the current stage of the development of the European Union, one national representative from each Member State. Additionally, creating a hierarchical system amongst the Commissars is not desirable. They should, on principle, remain equal. The efficiency of the Commission may be maintained by a suitable allocation of tasks between the Commissars and by giving the President of the Commission a sufficiently influential status. Tasks of any particular nature should not be reserved for any particular Member States, or in other words, the smaller countries should be included in the allocation of portfolios which have a central significance for the functioning of the European Union.

The strength of the position of the Commission should be emphasised. This would guarantee common benefits to the European Union as a whole, instead of focusing particular benefits on certain countries only. For example, the power of initiative which is solely vested in the European Commission should not be interfered with in any way and the Commission should have a sufficient capability to implement the decisions of the European Union and to control the implementation of the terms of the Treaty. A Commission which functions with determination is beneficial to both the small and the large Member States, because for the progress of the EU as a whole a driving force for integration is required.

3. Council

SAK, STTK and AKAVA support the view of the Finnish Government in that the above mentioned balance between small and large countries should be maintained when the voting system in the Council is re-weighted. It is justifiable to take the size of population into account, but this must not lead to a situation where only some countries will be able to dictate the terms. It is important that in all methods of decision making which are employed by the Council at least half of the Member States will support any individual solution. A situation in which a minority of the Member States could dictate a decision against the wishes of the majority, would be a contradiction of democratic principles.

Increasing the scope of qualified majority voting, instead of requiring full unanimity amongst the Member States, is vital for efficiency in the decision making by the Council. The function of the Council could, and should, be made more efficient through internal reform, (for example by the division of tasks between the different Council compositions), notwithstanding the results of the Intergovernmental Conference. The position of the European Council has become more prominent during the last few years, and it would be more suitable for the European Council to handle those wide-based issues which are the concern of a number of countries, or of all of them, rather than allocating these to some particular council compositions.

4. European Parliament and National Governments

A sufficient number of representatives from each Member State should be retained in the European Parliament, in order to guarantee the representation of a political cross-section in addition to national representation. However, a suitably higher level of representatives should be determined, for the number of Members to the European Parliament, to ensure the efficiency of its functions. There has been an improvement in the transparency of the European Parliament, and its position as a responsible body within the decision-making process of the European Union should be promoted.

An efficient method within the Finnish parliamentary system, of influencing Government decisions on EU issues, has been created in Finland. Whilst making its decisions, the Finnish Parliament has laudably consulted the social partners and NGOs which represent civil society. This model as a whole is encouraging from the aspect of transparency and democracy.

5. Economic and Social Committee; Committee of the Regions

SAK, STTK and AKAVA are of the opinion that the number of members of the Economic and Social Committee should be exactly the same as that of the Committee of the Regions. The number of members in both Committees should be increased alongside the enlargement of the European Union. The role of both the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions should be retained in an advisory capacity, and the importance of this role should not be permitted to weaken. These Committees should continue to be provided with the opportunity to make a statement on any of those issues with which they are able to deal under the provisions of the current Treaty. However, the Committees should be allowed to decide amongst themselves as to whether or not they will prepare such a statement.

The relative representation of the social partners in the reformed Economic and Social Committee should be retained as it is. The current division of the Committee members into the three categories, consisting of employers, employees and others, is suitable. The participation of NGOs in the activities of the Economic and Social Committee could be developed within the category of "others".

IV. Qualified Majority Voting

SAK, STTK and AKAVA support the opinion that, as opposed to the current demand for unanimity, qualified majority voting in the Council should be significantly increased. Unanimous decision-making would be mainly required only in those issues which are of a constitutional nature and in a few issues which are of a particularly sensitive nature for the Member States. Should a wider range of qualified majority voting fail to be adopted, decision-making within the European Union would cease upon the implementation of the enlargement of the Union.

Qualified majority voting should be adopted, for example, when dealing with the following issues:

1)
All sections of Article 137 of the Treaty, on employment and social policy, with the exception of the section on "social security and the social protection of employees" which should still be dealt with on a unanimous basis when legislative decisions on the basic principles of national social security systems are being made. However, when non-legislative action programmes, for example for the sharing of experience and information, are being adopted, qualified majority voting should also be applied to those issues which concern social security and the social protection of employees.

2)
Article 13 of the Treaty on discrimination. Qualified majority voting should be applied when decisions are being made on action programmes or legislation.

3)
Article 42 of the Treaty on social security of migrant workers.

4)
Article 133.5 of the Treaty on services and on intellectual property in the common foreign trade policy of the Union. An absolute prerequisite for this is, however, that sensitive sectors such as education, health issues, social services, culture, and insurance services which are under the umbrella of social security legislation, will continue to be decided upon on a unanimous basis. The best solution would be to itemise these sectors on the so-called negative deletions list, and not merely refer to the integration of the European Union in both internal and external decision making. The above mentioned sectors should not be regarded, within the European Union decision making, principally as issues of commercial policy, but instead the opportunities for the continued provision, for example of public services, should be fully maintained.

5)
Article 18 of the Treaty, with the aim of simplifying, for the citizens of the European Union, freedom of movement and residence within the Member States.

6)
Article 47 of the Treaty on starting out as a self-employed person and working as a self-employed person.

7)
Article 161 of the Treaty on the general rules which govern the Structural Funds.

8)
Article 94 of the Treaty on the convergence of the legislation, statutes and administrative regulations of the Member States which have a direct impact on the functioning of the single market.

In addition to the foregoing, there should be a particular increase in the use of qualified majority voting when decisions which concern the policies on the environment and on energy are being made. The same will apply to particular taxation issues which are mainly connected with the functioning of the internal market. Tax havens and tax competition between the Member States is a threat to employment, and this affects Finland along with the rest. Furthermore, the structure of taxation will become warped as additional pressure will be imposed for the taxation of labour.

V. Communitisation and Closer Cooperation

SAK, STTK and AKAVA are of the opinion that the functioning and decision-making procedures of the European Union should remain as Community-oriented as possible, and that intergovernmental operations should not be given undue emphasis. The intergovernmental method of operation is not always transparent and may easily discriminate against some Member States.

Closer cooperation may offer the Member States opportunities for Community-oriented, rather than the intergovernmental method, of operation. However, experience gained in the employment and social affairs sector of the "two-speed Europe" is contradictory, as in the case, for example, of the United Kingdom taking the decision to opt out of the Social Policy Protocol at Maastricht. Closer cooperation, or flexibility, should however be the ultimate method which is employed in search of results and should only be applied to an extremely limited extent when dealing with issues which may be decided upon by the use of qualified majority voting.

Closer cooperation must not be allowed to become, for some Member States, a method by which they can avoid or undercut the common minimum standards of the European Union, either in the employment or social sectors or both, and must not lead to warped competition. Therefore it should be added to the general principles of closer cooperation, as defined in the Treaty, that closer cooperation should not prevent the implementation of high standards in the world of work and social security (7.1, Clause A, Point d). The aim should be, when closer cooperation is being applied to some particular field, that those countries which have opted out will join as soon as possible, particularly in regard to the various questions which are connected with the internal market.

VI. Transparency

Transparency in the working of the European Union should be significantly increased in comparison with the current situation. An increase of transparency should concern all institutions of the Union and also national authorities when dealing with EU issues. Transparency in decision-making procedures, or in the preparatory stages of these, cannot be substituted by information campaigns. For example, transparency should be significantly increased in the enlargement process on both a national and a European level.

The drafting of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a model of an exemplary method of operation. It drew together a wide range of people, so that consultation and debate on both a national and a European level was plentiful. The opportunities which were provided for the citizens to follow the drafting of the Charter stage by stage, and with the aid of documents which were available on the Internet, represent the type of operation which the European Union should also apply to many other matters. When decisions are made by the Nice Summit, on future methods of handling various issues, the drafting of the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be held up as a model.

Social dialogue and tripartite cooperation on a European level, represent methods of operation which are citizen driven. Social dialogue has provided opportunities for negotiation on issues which concern the social partners, and this has led to a variety of European agreements, some of which are sector specific, whilst others are multi-sectoral. Promotion of dialogue on the EU level and its development on a national level, is important, particularly in those countries which have applied for accession.

VII. The Future of the European Union

SAK, STTK and AKAVA now call for a continued, wide ranging and unprejudiced debate, both on a national level in Finland and on a European level, on the issues which relate to the future of the European Union. In addition, reports on the various alternatives, and on their positive and negative points, should be prepared at the earliest opportunity. Civil society, including the trade unions, should be closely involved with the evaluation of such reports and in debate and interaction with the authorities and the politicians. Therefore SAK, STTK and AKAVA propose to the Finnish Government that it should now commence action for the immediate implementation of the above mentioned measures in Finland. There is also a need for similar action to be taken on the European Union level.