Proposition 53K1196

Proposition de résolution relative à la création d'un organe interparlementaire d'accompagnement et d'avis pour la Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune et la Politique de sécurité et de défense commune.

General information ¶

Authors

MR François-Xavier de Donnea
PS | SP André Flahaut

Submission date

Feb. 10, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European security Western European Union common foreign and security policy common security and defence policy inter-parliamentary cooperation resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 17, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

There are three main reasons why we receive this resolution. The most important, of course, is that the very important Brussels Convention was repealed on 31 March 2010.

The second reason is that in the Lisbon Treaties we find techniques, to make parliamentary actions and repercussions of the Parliament, national and European, function.

Third, the House and Senate Presidents should come up with a proposal in April next, if it can be shared by the House and Senate, together with the colleagues with whom they could find a kind of substitute for that institution.

I must especially thank colleague de Donnea, who, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, managed, with a working group, to quickly reach a broad consensus on the proposal submitted by him and the Speaker of the Chamber.

During the discussions, there were two major orientations. There was the proposal with amendments – I will say something about it later – which was supported by the Speaker of the Chamber and Mr. de Donnea, with which I myself as a reporter and Mr. Moriau agreed. On the other hand, Ms. Colen, Ms. Dumery, Mr. Brotcorne and Mrs. Brems, among others, believed that the representation would be unnuanced and that not every branch of parliaments would be visible in the delegation. So they proposed an increase in the number of deputies from 7 to 14 to give everyone their chance. This would also have addressed the concerns of both Ms Colen and Mr Brotcorne that everyone could be part of the representation at that level.

As a result, several amendments were submitted and re-submitted. Brems’ amendments to increase the number of participants in the delegation, namely four, on the one hand, and to organise the meetings exclusively in Brussels, on the other hand, were rejected by the committee with 10 and 11 against 4 respectively.

Furthermore, there was an agreement between Mr. de Donnea and his colleague of the Senate to find similar formulas in both federal chambers. The amendments result in a broad representation of the European Parliament.

The amended proposal was unanimously approved.

A final observation that I have allowed myself to make as a rapporteur of the discussions on this resolution is a response to the amendment of Mrs Brems, who submitted the same amendment as the first text contained in the proposal and which was rejected by a large majority by the committee. I would like to give a similar advice to the Chamber on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, we will support the resolution on the establishment of the new and functioning interparliamentary supervisory body.

It is a pity that, after some informal consultations to reach a consensus text, the resolution was eventually submitted by two colleagues from the two largest French-speaking parties. Per ⁇ the resolution would have gained more weight if it had been submitted by all democratic parties, as it was actually initially agreed.

We support this resolution because we can find ourselves in a number of important emphasis and because there have been important additions to the initial proposal of Senator De Decker, as he defended it at the most recent meeting of the Western European Union in Paris, without much consultation with the Belgian delegation there. It was a hint for future delegation leaders that they might consult with the delegation before making statements.

The present resolution proposal provides a forum for a structured parliamentary dialogue. We think that is a good thing.

We hope that the new advisory and supervisory body can contribute to a stronger and more credible European defence. However, we fear that the road to such European defence will still be long, as too many countries remain reluctant to share that power with the European level.

For us, it is important that we do not create a new institution with a lot of staff, as Senator De Decker originally intended, but that we come to a working body that can give advice. Furthermore, it would have also been pointless to establish a control body, since such a consultative body cannot impose sanctions and because the powers are actually at the national level.

The main task remains to bring together parliamentarians and specialists and to give advice. We think that is a good thing.

I would like to emphasize two other points that I have also said in the committee.

First, as regards the composition of the delegation, we approve the proposal of four members per country, in so far as our four-member delegation is considered to be a single delegation and in so far as this delegation is spread as far as possible across the different political groups. We also advocate that we make internal agreements on this, so that as many political groups as possible represent the Belgian Parliament, through a rotational system and substitutes. In the committee, I understood that there is consensus on this. This will be taken into account in the translation of the domestic regulations.

Second, we attach great importance to the publicity of the meeting and the flow of information. The new advisory and supervisory body can become an important forum where ideas and views are exchanged and discussed. Parliamentarians who are not members of the delegation but who are active in the Committee on Defence or in the Committee on Foreign Relations should therefore have access to the same information as their colleagues. This view was also shared in the committee. We expect that this too will be arranged.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution gives you the mandate to submit the proposal to your colleagues in the Western European Union. I would like to emphasize that it would be efficient to have as many meetings in Brussels as possible.

I would like to explain our amendment. The Ecolo-Green! group considers it to be an important body. We have a small amendment, which relates to the meeting place.

It is a body established and composed of delegations of the parliaments of all EU Member States and of the European Parliament. The original text stated that the body meets twice a year and that it would always meet in Brussels. It was amended in the committee as follows: “in Brussels or in the country that exercises the six-month presidency of the Council”. We regret this amendment in the committee.

We want to reverse it with our amendment, here in the plenary session. Why Why ? The original text actually reflected the choice made in the Lisbon Treaty to separate the meeting place from the rotating presidency. This is done there systematically before the official meetings of the European Council. Avoiding a circus is desirable. In fiscal difficult times, we also find that we must be careful of the unnecessary costs that such rotation entails.

The European Parliament in Brussels has the necessary infrastructure to hold those meetings and has also declared its willingness to provide support, such as translation, for those additional meetings. In other Member States, this may require renting expensive conference infrastructure. These are additional costs. This is not good governance. Let us avoid traveling with the relevant institution all corners of Europe. Therefore, with our amendment, which we will also submit to the Senate, we propose to restore the original form of the draft resolution, so that the meetings would always be held in Brussels.

I would like to speak on three points. Of course, I will not paraphrase the excellent report of my colleague, Herman De Croo.

Regarding the composition of the delegation, there has indeed been a fairly long debate on the question of whether 3 or 4 members should be fixed or whether 3 to 9 or 2 to 8 members should be said. This has been the subject of discussion within the Working Group as well as between your servant, his Senate colleague and other prominent members of the Senate. We came to the conclusion that it would be better to limit the number to 4 and give the same number to each member country.

This is clearly a basis for negotiation. We defend what we think is good and right as a basis for negotiation. Then a negotiation will have to take place. That said, the fact of making limited delegations of 4 members has indeed caused – Mr. Vercamer recalled – in some of our colleagues the fear of not having sufficiently pluralist delegations with regard to Belgium. It is obvious that each country composes its delegations as it wants. We do not have to intervene on how other member countries will compose their delegations. However, Mr. Van der Maelen, it is a tradition in our parliament that delegations should be composed based on or based on the D’Hondt system. We can therefore very well make sure that to the 4 effective members (2 for the Chamber and 2 for the Senate), we add suppleants, knowing that it may happen that colleagues are not available to be present every time. With our well-known pragmatism and concern for pluralism, I am convinced that we will be able to ensure that there is a balanced representation of the different political families of the House and the Senate within these delegations.

Secondly, it should also be emphasized that the resolution provides that Ms Ashton, the High Representative, or the future High Representative, for Foreign Policy, must be present and come to explain before this conference. That said, it is clear that such a conference can invite whoever it wants. If it wishes to invite the President of the Council, the President of the Commission or the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country that holds the rotating presidency, it will of course be able to do so but this must be fixed in the Rules of Procedure. So it was wise not to list a whole series of personalities that could be invited. We have only mentioned the High Representative, but nothing prevents the conference from inviting whoever it wants. I would like to repeat it because there have also been discussions on this subject, ⁇ with the Senate.

My last comment concerns the amendment of Ms. Brems. I agree with you on the objective. This was the initial text of the draft resolution. Flahaut and myself had drafted and which had been approved by the working group that I had the honor to preside over.

That said, several of our colleagues, both from the House and the Senate, have had contacts with the European Parliament, but also with other delegations at recent international meetings. It appeared to us that it was wise to leave a certain valve of security or freedom with regard to the meeting place.

In my opinion, Brussels is the perfect place. And even if Brussels is chosen, it should not be in the European Parliament. Some believe that the country that holds the rotating presidency should still have a possibility to do so at home. To leave some flexibility in the negotiation to which MM will participate. Flahaut and Pieters in a few weeks, some flexibility seemed to me desirable in this matter.

I repeat, I endorse Mrs. Brems’ goal, while hoping that it will be achieved. But if some reservations are already made in this proposal for a resolution, we are sure that we will not succeed. Sometimes you need to know how to jump back in order to jump better and cross the gap.

I will not say anything more. I can only subscribe to the comments expressed by Mr. Vercamer and De Croo and even Mrs. Brems, although I do not agree to flow these wise reflections into an amendment.