The Laeken Declaration, also known by its official title, The Future of the European Union, is a key document in understanding the European Union. In this document the leaders of all EU member states of the time (December 2001) explained what they considered good about the EU and what problems the EU faced. It recognised the disillusion and wish for reform that was widespread amongst EU citizens.

The document stated the terms on which Giscard d' Estaing's Convention on the Future of the European Union should work and the end result they required. This was a set of proposals for reform which EU leaders could then discuss.

Giscard d'Estaing did not comply with the instructions he was given. Instead he produced the European Constitution. This was discussed and modified and eventually signed by EU leaders in October 2004. The Constitution failed to address most of the concerns expressed in the Laeken Declaration.

What follows is the full text of this document.

David Roberts
Author of The European Union and You

Note, The European Union and You contains this complete text of The Laeken Declaration.

OFFICIAL TEXT

Laeken - Belgium - 15 December 2001



European Union document SN 273/01

The Future of the European Union

[Popularly known as The Laeken Declaration]

I. EUROPE AT A CROSSROADS

For centuries, peoples and states have taken up arms and waged war to win

control of the European continent. The debilitating effects of two bloody

wars and the weakening of Europe's position in the world brought a growing

realisation that only peace and concerted action could make the dream of a

strong, unified Europe come true. In order to banish once and for all the

demons of the past, a start was made with a coal and steel community.

Other economic activities, such as agriculture, were subsequently added in.

A genuine single market was eventually established for goods, persons,

services and capital, and a single currency was added in 1999. On

1 January 2002 the euro is to become a day-to-day reality for 300 million

European citizens.

The European Union has thus gradually come into being. In the beginning, it

was more of an economic and technical collaboration. Twenty years ago,

with the first direct elections to the European Parliament, the Community's

democratic legitimacy, which until then had lain with the Council alone, was

considerably strengthened. Over the last ten years, construction of a

political union has begun and cooperation been established on social policy,

employment, asylum, immigration, police, justice, foreign policy and a

common security and defence policy.

The European Union is a success story. For over half a century now, Europe

has been at peace. Along with North America and Japan, the Union forms

one of the three most prosperous parts of the world. As a result of mutual

solidarity and fair distribution of the benefits of economic development,

moreover, the standard of living in the Union's weaker regions has

increased enormously and they have made good much of the disadvantage

they were at.

Fifty years on, however, the Union stands at a crossroads, a defining

moment in its existence. The unification of Europe is near. The Union is

about to expand to bring in more than ten new Member States,

predominantly Central and Eastern European, thereby finally closing one of

the darkest chapters in European history: the Second World War and the

ensuing artificial division of Europe. At long last, Europe is on its way to

becoming one big family, without bloodshed, a real transformation clearly

calling for a different approach from fifty years ago, when six countries first

took the lead.

Top of page

The democratic challenge facing Europe

At the same time, the Union faces twin challenges, one within and the other

beyond its borders. 



Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its

citizens. Citizens undoubtedly support the Union's broad aims, but they do

not always see a connection between those goals and the Union's everyday

action. They want the European institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid

and, above all, more efficient and open. Many also feel that the Union

should involve itself more with their particular concerns, instead of

intervening, in every detail, in matters by their nature better left to Member

States' and regions' elected representatives. This is even perceived by

some as a threat to their identity. More importantly, however, they feel that

deals are all too often cut out of their sight and they want better democratic

scrutiny.

Europe's new role in a globalised world

Beyond its borders, in turn, the European Union is confronted with a

fast-changing, globalised world. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, it

looked briefly as though we would for a long while be living in a stable world

order, free from conflict, founded upon human rights. Just a few years later,

however, there is no such certainty. The eleventh of September has brought

a rude awakening. The opposing forces have not gone away: religious

fanaticism, ethnic nationalism, racism and terrorism are on the increase,

and regional conflicts, poverty and underdevelopment still provide a

constant seedbed for them.

What is Europe's role in this changed world? Does Europe not, now that is

finally unified, have a leading role to play in a new world order, that of a

power able both to play a stabilising role worldwide and to point the way

ahead for many countries and peoples? Europe as the continent of humane

values, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the French Revolution and the

fall of the Berlin Wall; the continent of liberty, solidarity and above all

diversity, meaning respect for others' languages, cultures and traditions.

The European Union's one boundary is democracy and human rights. The

Union is open only to countries which uphold basic values such as

free elections, respect for minorities and respect for the rule of law.

Now that the Cold War is over and we are living in a globalised, yet also

highly fragmented world, Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in the

governance of globalisation. The role it has to play is that of a power

resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror and all fanaticism, but

which also does not turn a blind eye to the world's heartrending injustices.

In short, a power wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a

way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest. A power

seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to

anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development.

The expectations of Europe's citizens

The image of a democratic and globally engaged Europe admirably matches

citizens' wishes. There have been frequent public calls for a greater EU role

in justice and security, action against cross-border crime, control of

migration flows and reception of asylum seekers and refugees from

far-flung war zones. Citizens also want results in the fields of employment

and combating poverty and social exclusion, as well as in the field of

economic and social cohesion. They want a common approach on

environmental pollution, climate change and food safety, in short, all

transnational issues which they instinctively sense can only be tackled by

working together. Just as they also want to see Europe more involved in

foreign affairs, security and defence, in other words, greater and better

coordinated action to deal with trouble spots in and around Europe and in

the rest of the world.

At the same time, citizens also feel that the Union is behaving too

bureaucratically in numerous other areas. In coordinating the economic,

financial and fiscal environment, the basic issue should continue to be

proper operation of the internal market and the single currency, without this

jeopardising Member States' individuality. National and regional differences

frequently stem from history or tradition. They can be enriching. In other

words, what citizens understand by "good governance" is opening up fresh

opportunities, not imposing further red tape. 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.

In short, citizens are calling for a clear, open, effective, democratically

controlled Community approach, developing a Europe which points the way

ahead for the world. An approach that 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.

Top of
page

II.CHALLENGES AND REFORMS IN A RENEWED UNION

The Union needs to become more democratic, more transparent and more

efficient. It also has to resolve three basic challenges: how to bring citizens, and

primarily the young, closer to the European design and the European institutions,

how to organise politics and the European political area in an enlarged Union and

how to develop the Union into a stabilising factor and a model in the new,

multipolar world. In order to address them a number of specific questions need to

be put.

A better division and definition of competence in the European Union

Citizens often hold expectations of the European Union that are not always

fulfilled. And vice versa - they sometimes have the impression that the Union takes on

too much in areas where its involvement is not always essential. Thus the important

thing is to clarify, simplify and adjust the division of competence between the Union and

the Member States in the light of the new challenges facing the Union. This can lead

both to restoring tasks to the Member States and to assigning new missions to the

Union, or to the extension of existing powers, while constantly bearing in mind the

equality of the Member States and their mutual solidarity.

A first series of questions that needs to be put concerns how the division of

competence can be made more transparent. Can we thus make a clearer distinction

between three types of competence: the exclusive competence of the Union, the

competence of the Member States and the shared competence of the Union and the

Member States? At what level is competence exercised in the most efficient way? How

is the principle of subsidiarity to be applied here? And should we not make it clear that

any powers not assigned by the Treaties to the Union fall within the exclusive sphere of

competence of the Member States? And what would be the consequences of this?

The next series of questions should aim, within this new framework and while respecting

the "acquis communautaire", to determine whether there needs to be any reorganisation

of competence. How can citizens' expectations be taken as a guide here? What missions

would this produce for the Union? And, vice versa, what tasks could better be left to

the Member States? What amendments should be made to the Treaty on the various

policies? How, for example, should a more coherent common foreign policy and defence

policy be developed? Should the Petersberg tasks be updated? Do we want to adopt a

more integrated approach to police and criminal law cooperation? How can

economic-policy coordination be stepped up? How can we intensify cooperation in the

field of social inclusion, the environment, health and food safety? But then, should not

the day-to-day administration and implementation of the Union's policy be left more

emphatically to the Member States and, where their constitutions so provide, to the

regions? Should they not be provided with guarantees that their spheres of competence

will not be affected?

Lastly, there is the question of how to ensure that a redefined division of competence

does not lead to a creeping expansion of the competence of the Union or to

encroachment upon the exclusive areas of competence of the Member States and,

where there is provision for this, regions. How are we to ensure at the same time that

the European dynamic does not come to a halt? In the future as well the Union must

continue to be able to react to fresh challenges and developments and must be able to

explore new policy areas. Should Articles 95 and 308 of the Treaty be reviewed for this

purpose in the light of the "acquis jurisprudentiel"?

Simplification of the Union's instruments

Who does what is not the only important question; the nature of the Union's action and

what instruments it should use are equally important. Successive amendments to the

Treaty have on each occasion resulted in a proliferation of instruments, and directives

have gradually evolved towards more and more detailed legislation. The key question is

therefore whether the Union's various instruments should not be better defined and

whether their number should not be reduced.

In other words, should a distinction be introduced between legislative and executive

measures? Should the number of legislative instruments be reduced: directly applicable

rules, framework legislation and non-enforceable instruments (opinions,

recommendations, open coordination)? Is it or is it not desirable to have more frequent

recourse to framework legislation, which affords the Member States more room for

manoeuvre in achieving policy objectives? For which areas of competence are open

coordination and mutual recognition the most appropriate instruments? Is the principle of

proportionality to remain the point of departure?

More democracy, transparency and efficiency in the European Union

The European Union 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

The national parliaments also contribute towards the legitimacy of the European project.

The declaration on the future of the Union, annexed to the Treaty of Nice, stressed the

need to examine their role in European integration. More generally, the question arises as

to what initiatives we can take to develop a European public area.

The first question is thus how we can increase the democratic legitimacy and

transparency of the present institutions, a question which is valid for the three

institutions.

How can the authority and efficiency of the European Commission be enhanced? How

should the President of the Commission be appointed: by the European Council, by the

European Parliament or should he be directly elected by the citizens? Should the role of

the European Parliament be strengthened? Should we extend the right of co-decision or

not? Should the way in which we elect the members of the European Parliament be

reviewed? Should a European electoral constituency be created, or should

constituencies continue to be determined nationally? Can the two systems be combined?

Should the role of the Council be strengthened? Should the Council act in the same

manner in its legislative and its executive capacities? With a view to greater

transparency, should the meetings of the Council, at least in its legislative capacity, be

public? Should citizens have more access to Council documents? How, finally, should the

balance and reciprocal control between the institutions be ensured?

A second question, which also relates to democratic legitimacy, involves the role of

national parliaments. Should they be represented in a new institution, alongside the

Council and the European Parliament? Should they have a role in areas of European

action in which the European Parliament has no competence? Should they focus on the

division of competence between Union and Member States, for example through

preliminary checking of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity?

The third question concerns how we can improve the efficiency of decision-making and

the workings of the institutions in a Union of some thirty Member States. How could the

Union set its objectives and priorities more effectively and ensure better implementation?

Is there a need for more decisions by a qualified majority? How is the co-decision

procedure between the Council and the European Parliament to be simplified and

speeded up? What of the six-monthly rotation of the Presidency of the Union? What is

the future role of the European Parliament? What of the future role and structure of the

various Council formations? How should the coherence of European foreign policy be

enhanced? How is synergy between the High Representative and the competent

Commissioner to be reinforced? Should the external representation of the Union in

international fora be extended further?

Towards a Constitution for European citizens

The European Union currently has four Treaties. The objectives, powers and policy

instruments of the Union are currently spread across those Treaties. If we are to have

greater transparency, simplification is essential.

Four sets of questions arise in this connection. The first concerns simplifying the existing

Treaties without changing their content. Should the distinction between the Union and

the Communities be reviewed? What of the division into three pillars?

Questions then arise as to the possible reorganisation of the Treaties. Should a

distinction be made between a basic treaty and the other treaty provisions? Should this

distinction involve separating the texts? Could this lead to a distinction between the

amendment and ratification procedures for the basic treaty and for the other treaty

provisions?

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.

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. What might

the basic features of such a constitution be? The values which the Union cherishes, the

fundamental rights and obligations of its citizens, the relationship between Member

States in the Union?
Top of page

III. CONVENING OF A CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

In order to pave the way for the next Intergovernmental Conference as broadly and

openly as possible, the European Council has decided to convene a Convention

composed of the main parties involved in the debate on the future of the Union. In the

light of the foregoing, it will be the task of that Convention to consider the key issues

arising for the Union's future development and try to identify the various possible

responses.

The European Council has appointed Mr V. Giscard d'Estaing as Chairman of the

Convention and Mr G. Amato and Mr J.L. Dehaene as Vice-Chairmen.

Composition

In addition to its Chairman and Vice-Chairmen, the Convention will be composed of

15 representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States (one

from each Member State), 30 members of national parliaments (two from each Member

State), 16 members of the European Parliament and two Commission representatives.

The accession candidate countries will be fully involved in the Convention's proceedings.

They will be represented in the same way as the current Member States (one

government representative and two national parliament members) and will be able to

take part in the proceedings without, however, being able to prevent any consensus

which may emerge among the Member States.

The members of the Convention may only be replaced by alternate members if they are

not present. The alternate members will be designated in the same way as full members.

The Praesidium of the Convention will be composed of the Convention Chairman and

Vice-Chairmen and nine members drawn from the Convention (the representatives of all

the governments holding the Council Presidency during the Convention, two national

parliament representatives, two European Parliament representatives and

two Commission representatives).

Three representatives of the Economic and Social Committee with three representatives

of the European social partners; from the Committee of the Regions: six representatives

(to be appointed by the Committee of the Regions from the regions, cities and regions

with legislative powers), and the European Ombudsman will be invited to attend as

observers. The Presidents of the Court of Justice and of the Court of Auditors may be

invited by the Praesidium to address the Convention.

Length of proceedings

The Convention will hold its inaugural meeting on 1 March 2002, when it will appoint its

Praesidium and adopt its rules of procedure. Proceedings will be completed after a year,

that is to say in time for the Chairman of the Convention to present its outcome to the

European Council.

Working methods

The Chairman will pave the way for the opening of the Convention's proceedings by

drawing conclusions from the public debate. The Praesidium will serve to lend impetus

and will provide the Convention with an initial working basis.

The Praesidium may consult Commission officials and experts of its choice on any

technical aspect which it sees fit to look into. It may set up ad hoc working parties.



The Council will be kept informed of the progress of the Convention's proceedings.

The Convention Chairman will give an oral progress report at each European Council

meeting, thus enabling Heads of State or Government to give their views at the same

time.

The Convention will meet in Brussels. The Convention's discussions and all official

documents will be in the public domain. The Convention will work in the Union's eleven

working languages.

Final document

The Convention will consider the various issues. It will draw up a final document which

may comprise either different options, indicating the degree of support which they

received, or recommendations if consensus is achieved.

Together with the outcome of national debates on the future of the Union, the final

document will provide a starting point for discussions in the Intergovernmental

Conference, which will take the ultimate decisions.

Forum

In order for the debate to be broadly based and involve all citizens, a Forum will be

opened for organisations representing civil society (the social partners, the business

world, non-governmental organisations, academia, etc.). It will take the form of a

structured network of organisations receiving regular information on the Convention's

proceedings. Their contributions will serve as input into the debate. Such organisations

may be heard or consulted on specific topics in accordance with arrangements to be

established by the Praesidium.

Secretariat

The Praesidium will be assisted by a Convention Secretariat, to be provided by the

General Secretariat of the Council, which may incorporate Commission and

European Parliament experts.

[END OF OFFICIAL TEXT]

This website is edited by David Roberts.

David Roberts is the author of The European Union and You. See Home page for details and a link. HOME PAGE

Top of page