Activities of Morten MESSERSCHMIDT related to 2018/2093(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on differentiated integration PDF (403 KB) DOC (69 KB)
Amendments (21)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas differentiated integration is a polysemous concept that can define various phenomena both from a political and from a technical point of view, as is illustrated by the variety of possible cooperation arrangements, namely: ‘variable geometry and geography’, ‘multi-speed’, ‘à la carte’, ‘concentric circles’, ‘Olympic rings’, and so forth;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas Europe constitutes what Kundera calls a maximum of diversity in a minimum of space, something that should be reflected in the manner of organising European cooperation, bodies, and shared goals, as anything else would be tantamount to repudiating the true Europe;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the political perception of differentiated integration varies significantly depending on the national context; whereas in the eyes of the elites in some Member States that have been members of the Union for longer, it can carry a positive connotation of creating a “pioneer group”, while in the Member States that have more recently joined the Union it is often perceived as a path towards the creation of first-class and second-class Member States of the Uniondifferentiated integration can be associated with the idea of creating a “pioneer group” advancing towards supranational amalgamation, while in the Member States that have more recently joined the Union, where the memory of the totalitarian trauma is still fresh, those notions are perceived with perplexity, since the national community, democracy, cultural heritage, and political freedoms are understood to be indivisible treasures which are fragile and always have to be protected;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas differentiation has been a stable feature of European integcooperation and has occurred simultaneously withbeen developed to enable the deepening and the widening of the EU to be pursued simultaneously; whereas, as a consequence, one cannot oppose differentiation andto integration nor present differentior cooperation, nor present supranational integration as an innovative path for the future of the Union, since it was theorised about long ago by Saint-Simon (1814), Proudhon (1863), and, before them, by Charles-Irénée Castel, abbé de Saint- Pierre (1713);
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas experience shows that, if interdependence works as a factor of integration, politicization often works as an obstacle tois constantly cited certain circles as an argument for ever-increasing supranational integration, democracies attempt to resist it; whereas, as a consequence, Union policy areas with the deepest integration mare mostly the least politicized ones, such as internal market harmonization and regulation, whilek the change from representative government to technocratic governance and are, of course, the ones subject to the least democratic control – witness the examples of internal market harmonization and regulation or the governance of the euro area – and, that being the case, democratically controlled forms of differentiated integcooperation seems most likely to arisehould take over and be encouraged in policy areas characterised by high political polarisation, such as monetary policy, defence, borders control, fundamental rights or taxation;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the Treaties foreseprovide the possibilities for Member States to take different paths of integration, namely via enhanced cooperation (Article 20 TEU) and Ppermanent structured cooperation (Article 46 TEU); , without preventing the development of differentiated forms of cooperation based on the partners’ freedom of choice, commitments, and organisational machinery, these having enabled Europe to achieve its greatest successes;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the process of differentiation has led to the creation of initiatives within the Union legal framework but also to some more flexible intergovernmental legal arrangements, which have led tomade the creaposition of amore complex and non-understandable system for citizens, with reduced accountability of public decisions; baffling to citizens and hence exacerbated the intrinsic ‘democratic deficit’, a spectre consistently raised in rulings handed down by, among others, the German Constitutional Court;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Insists that the debate should not be about pro-differentiation versus anti- differentiation but about the best ways to operationalise differentiated integcooperation arrangements outside or inside the EU institutional framework, in the best interest of the Union and its citizenspeoples of Europe;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that differentiated integcooperation should reflect the idea that Europe does not work on a one-size fits all approach and should adapt to the needs and wishes of its citizenpeoples; Bbelieves that differentiation should be used as a constitutional tool to ensure flexibility, freedom, and a pragmatic approach, without undermining the general interest of the Union and the equality of rights and opportuni, which, instead of being imposed from above by any supranational authority, should be determined democratically and by consensus among the representatives between citizensof the European peoples constituting its substance;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that Parliament believes that differentiated integcooperation must remain open to all Member Stat, free, and flexible, reflect the will of the national democracies, and continue to act as an example of deeper European integration, not as a way to facilitate ‘à la carte’ solutions’seek union in so far as this is necessary, as opposed to uniformity and amalgamation across the board, while accepting à la carte’ solutions’ wherever desired, since they are preferable to outright withdrawal of the EU and the only way to save it from imploding;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Affirms that any differentiation initiative that would lead to the creation or to the perception of the creation of first- class and second-class Member States of the Union woulinitiative that continued to ignore the widespread democratic distrust not of the European project, but of the supranational version of it, which for more than 15 years has been expressed in numerous referendums and election results and in most opinion polls, would accelerate the continuing European fragmentation and be a major political failure with detrimentalirreparable consequences for the EUuropean project as a whole;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that differentiated integcooperation should always, if possible, take place within the Treaty provisions, and maintain the unity of EU institutions and should not lead to the creation of parallel institutional arrangements; remindsinstitutional coherence of the EU, but should not rule out extra-Treaty cooperation; points out that flexibility and adaptation torespect for national, regional or local specificities can and should also be ensured via provisions in secondary lawdemocracies and specificities, now more than ever, can and must be ensured;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that democracy should never be the price to pay for differentiation and that differentiated integratbuilding Europe and that future decisions should not lead to more complex decision-making processes that wouldeven more secretive and complex European processes, further undermineing the democracomprehensibility of power, political accountability of Union institutions, separation of powers, and the primacy of the constitution, which all define the ‘rule of law’;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that a step further would be to go beyond the existing Treaty limits and to initiate a change to the Treaty which would introduce two types of membership: full membership and associated membershipby unlocking the cooperation system so as to make the arrangements free, flexible, and open in terms of aims, fields, and the choice of organisational machinery and participating countries, including non-EU countries, thereby enabling all the countries concerned to respond to the existential challenges for the future of European civilisation, in particular the demographic, security, environmental, digital, and cultural challenges;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Suggests that full membership would require full compliance with Union primary law and all the policy areas whereas associated membership would entail the participation in certain policies only and would not be fully integrated into the EU decision-making process; Believes that the associated membership should be accompanied by obligations corresponding to the associated rights, as for example a contribution to the EU budget and should be conditional to the respect of the Union’s fundamental values and to the four freedomsno decision should be taken if it were likely to add more to the mutual distrust among European countries, further widen the political, economic, and cultural divides, specifically between East and West, as well as North and South, fuel the resentment towards a project that is being increasingly less perceived as authentically ‘European’, and lastly, lead to a frightening rise of extremism;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines that flexibility and differentiation should go hand in hand with ademocratic reinforcement of common rules in corm whereby, in particular, full European legislative areas in order to ensure that differentiation does not lead to political fragmentation; Therefore, considers necessary the existence, in a future European institutional framework, of European Pillars of Political, Economic, Social and Environmental rights that would not be possible to evadsponsibility would be conferred on the national parliaments, the best practices for parliamentary oversight of European activities would be brought into general use, and the Luxembourg compromise would be reaffirmed by being implemented in the wake of a prior European public debate;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Suggests, when competences attribution allows it, permitting regions and other substate entities to participate in cases of enhanced cooperation; also proposes opening enhanced cooperation to the participation of candidate countrieany European country interested; accordingly proposes that an interpretation of Article 20 TFEU be adopted whereby the future partners would enjoy freedom of choice regarding the geographical scope, substance, aims, and organisational machinery of their proposed cooperation arrangements;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Suggests, on the basedis onf good practices observed in the Australian federal model, to introduceing a procedure that would allow individual Member States to mirror another Member State’s law or to enact the immediate application of a law based on another Member State’s law; calls for the competent high courts in the Member States to be asked beforehand to rule whether such a measure would be compatible with their constitutions;