Declaration puts the citizen first

The Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union is a brisk and readable document which reflects its origins in a lively debate about the proper direction of the EU over coming years.

This involved an active group convened by the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr Guy Verhofstadt. Several of its key members, such as Mr Giuliano Amato, Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene and Mr David Miliband, will play prominent roles in the praesidium of the Convention on the Future of the European Union convened by this summit, thereby providing continuity in its deliberations.

The convention will involve over 100 members, drawn from representatives of government leaders, national parliaments, the European Parliament, the Commission, and the accession candidate countries.

There will be many associate members in a 12-15 month representative public deliberation on the future of the EU, prior to another inter-governmental conference on the subject in 2003-4.

Successive drafts of the declaration were discussed with national governments and the many amendments suggested were incorporated into the version put to the Laeken summit. In the event, few changes made to this final draft. The most important of them strengthened references to citizens and their concerns throughout the text. Also added was an explicit reference to whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The declaration puts citizens and democratic legitimacy in the foreground of its concerns. According to the summit conclusions, the prospects it opens up "mark a decisive step for the citizen towards a simpler Union; one that is stronger in the pursuit of its essential objectives and more definitely present in the world".

The interests and values of citizens will best be served by "a clear, open, democratically-controlled Community approach, developing a Europe which points the way ahead for the world", according to the declaration.

The first part of the document, entitled "Europe at a Crossroads", concludes by saying such an approach "provides concrete results in terms of more jobs, better quality of life, less crime, decent education and better health care. There can be no doubt that this will require Europe to undergo renewal and reform". What they expect is "more results, better responses to practical issues and not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life".

This is a refreshing change from the turgid prose normally associated with EU documents. As Mr Verhofstadt said in announcing agreement on the convention, it contains "no taboos or no-go areas".

The second part, entitled "Challenges and Reforms in a Renewed Union", sets out objectives for the convention's work, presented in the form of a series of questions about the EU's future direction. They are pitched sufficiently widely to reflect a broad set of preoccupations under four main headings: a better division and definition of competences - who does what - in the EU; simplification of its instruments; more democracy, transparency and efficiency; and moving towards a constitution for European citizens.

The basic task facing the convention in discussing the EU's competences will be to decide where decisions are most appropriately to be taken - exclusively by the supranational institutions, by the member-states or shared between these two levels. It will also deal with whether there should be a reorganisation of competences, whether in foreign and defence policy, economic policy co-ordination, social inclusion, the environment or health and food safety.

Simplification deals with the question of whether the EU's policy instruments - such as directly applicable rules, framework legislation and non-enforceable opinions, recommendations or open co-ordination - can be better defined or reduced.

Dealing with more democracy, transparency and efficiency, the declaration says the EU "derives its legitimacy from the democratic values it projects, the aims it pursues and the powers and instruments it possesses. However, the European project also derives its legitimacy from democratic, transparent and efficient institutions."

More generally, the declaration says, "the question arises as to what initiatives we can take to develop a European public area". An earlier draft referred to the development of stronger transnational political parties in the EU, which encountered resistance from the British; but the more general phrasing accepted is still quite permissive and will allow such issues to be raised - typifying the document's inclusive nature.

It asks how the authority and efficiency of the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament can be enhanced. Should legislative council meetings be made public and should citizens have more access to their documents? These are just some of the questions asked.

The Laeken declaration goes on to pose important constitutional questions in a similarly direct and accessible fashion: "Thought would also have to be given to whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be included in the basic treaty and to whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights". That would give direct effect to their provisions in Irish law, with major consequences for our political and legal systems.

This section of the document concludes by saying the question "ultimately arises as to whether this simplification and reorganisation might not lead in the long run to the adoption of a constitutional text in the Union".