Committee on Constitutional Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
AFCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Amendment nine is in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted.
Amendment 10 is in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 11 is in two parts. First part in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
Second part: in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Amendment 12, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 13 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Amendment 14 was adopted in favor, against, and abstentions, but let's check that. I open the vote on Amendment 14.
I close the vote. I think it was rejected. Amendment 15, in favor, against, abstentions: adopted. Amendment 16: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 17 is in favor.
Against. Abstentions are rejected. Amendment 18 is in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted.
Amendment 19 is in favor. Adopted against abstentions. Amendment one, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment two is in two parts. First part in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
Second part: in favor, against, abstentions. I think it was adopted. Let's check that. I open the vote. Amendment two, second part: the vote is open.
The vote is closed. It was adopted. Amendment three, in favor. Against. Abstentions are rejected.
Amendment four is in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted. Amendment five is in favor. Against.
Abstentions are adopted. Final vote. As a roll call vote, I open the vote. Process. Close the vote.
19 in favor. No one voted against, and there were six abstentions. Thank you very much, colleagues. Then we can come to the second vote, namely on the interim report on the proposal for the multi-annual financial framework for 2028 to 2034. By the deadline of June, 60 amendments have been tabled, to which I have drawn up compromise amendments.
The voting list was circulated on February 23. Compromise amendment one was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. Compromise amendment two was adopted in favor, against, with abstentions. Amendment 40, part two, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment 10, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Amendment 12, in favor: against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment 13 was rejected with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. Amendment 14: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment two, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 15: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
Amendment 16 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Amendments eighteen and nineteen are identical in favor, against, and abstentions: rejected. Amendment 22: in favor, against, abstentions; rejected. Amendment 20: in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Amendment 21 is in two parts.
Part one: in favor, against, abstentions; we have to check that. I open the vote for amendment 21, part one. The vote is open. Close the vote. Adopted.
Part two: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment four, in favor, against, abstentions: adopted. Amendment 23: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 24: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 25 in favor, against.
Abstentions are rejected. 26 in favor. Against. Abstentions are rejected. 28 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are rejected. 27 in favor. Against. Abstentions are rejected.
29 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 30 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 31 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected; 32 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected; 33 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected; 5 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. 34 in favor. Against abstentions were rejected.
35 in favor. Against abstentions, rejected. 36 in favor. Against, abstentions rejected. 37 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
37 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 39 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Amendment seven, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. 41 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 42 in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
43 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 44 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Amendment eight, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. 45 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 46 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
47 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 48 in favor. Adopted against abstentions. 49 in favor. Adopted against abstentions.
Amendment 50 is in favor. Against abstentions, rejected. Amendment 53, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment 51: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 52 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted; 54 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted; 55, 56, and 57 have been withdrawn; 58 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
59 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 60 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 61 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 61 is in two parts. Part, sorry.
62 in two parts. In favor or against the first part. Yeah. Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 62, part two: in favor, against, abstentions; rejected.
Amendment 63, in favor, against, abstentions: rejected. Amendment 64: in favor, against, abstentions; rejected. 65 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 66 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 67 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
68 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 69 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 70 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Nine in favor, none against, no abstentions. Adopted. 11 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
Amendment one, in favor, against, abstentions: adopted. Finally, the final vote: a roll call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. It was adopted, and we are not too late now.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, colleagues. Yeah. Yeah. I think the coordinators should stay in the room so that we can go on. Stay, please.
If there is, is there any other business? Not the case. Then the meeting is closed, and we go on with the coordinators' round.
Speaker 5
We now have an in-camera meeting. So please, the people who are not invited to the in-camera meeting should leave the room.
Speaker 2
So, colleagues, good afternoon. This meeting is held in camera and in English only, without interpretation. So, please, all those who are not formally invited, leave the room. We have several nominations to decide on today. On 4 February, the COP authorized our request to draw up two own-initiative reports, namely one titled "Enhanced EU Decision Making through Means Provided for in the EU Treaties," with the AFET committee drawing up an opinion under Rule 57, and the second titled "Reinforcing Democratic Accountability and Enhancing Parliament's Political Scrutiny of the Commission."
And one implementation report, namely with the title: Evaluation of the Track Record of the Committee of the Regions as Guardian of the Principle of Subsidiarity. I would now like to invite you to allocate these files, bearing in mind that the rapporteurship of the own-initiative reports, as well as the implementation reports, is charged with two points. I will not accept any colleague who wants the report but does not want to pay. Loren Vincent, for the EPP, please.
Speaker 8
For the EPP, the priority would be enhanced EU decision-making through the means provided by the EU treaties.
Speaker 7
As for the first one, we are not interested. But we're willing to support. We're not interested. We're willing to support those who are showing actual interest in the file.
And the other two?
Speaker 7
I can also add that, considering there seems to be some competition, we are supporting the Greens.
Speaker 3
Okay. I think we will find out later. And what do you think about not being interested in either of those proposals? No. Both.
We have two.
Speaker 7
If you're discussing them both as reinforcing democratic accountability, I'm supporting the renewed candidacy for the file.
Speaker 2
Okay. You know more than I do, but okay. In case Renew wants to work on this report, you would report to Renew. And in case of the first report, you would support the Greens. Okay.
Speaker 3
And what about the implementation report? No. No interest. Your appetite is not very good; you are not hungry tonight until this afternoon. Okay.
Marike Ehlers for the PFE.
Speaker 9
Yes. Thank you very much, Chair. On enhanced decision-making, we're happy to support the EPP on that file. With regard to reinforcing democratic accountability, I believe that this is a merger of a title that we had also proposed as the Patriots. So, we are very much interested in taking the rapporteurship on this file.
As to the evaluation of the track record of the Committee of the Regions, we are open to hearing which group is interested.
Speaker 13
Thank you. We enhance your decision-making through means provided in the EU treaties; we are okay with the EPP interest. We would like to express our strong interest in reinforcing democratic accountability and enhancing parliamentary political scrutiny of the Commission. We were also at the origin of this file. We know that we got one point, and we would like to use our point and also to take a debt and use one point in the second half, knowing that we would have fewer points in the second half than we are entitled to.
If you agree, we are ready to pay our 2 points to have this file, on which we have a strong interest, and we are open to any solution on the evaluation of the track record of the Committee of the Regions.
Speaker 14
Yes. Sorry. Mister Yaki couldn't be here today, and he told me that he is quite interested in the fight to reinforce democratic accountability. Uh-huh.
Daniel Freund
Thanks, Chair. So, if I'm well informed by our coordinator, then the first one on enhanced decision making was a Greens proposal. I think it is the custom that the groups that put a proposal forward then also usually get the rapporteurship for that, and we would very much like to have the rapporteurship for the report that we had indeed suggested. And we hope very much that the EPP can agree to let us buy the report with the points that we have. We as Greens have not had a rapporteurship of anything in this committee since the beginning of this mandate.
So this would be a good opportunity for us to start that aspect of the work here as well. On the implementation report, I do not have a very strong opinion. But if there is no interest, I am not sure that this absolutely has to be done. For me, it can also be, you know, we can let this be and not do the implementation report on the track record of the Committee of the Regions.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Chair. We would love to see the Greens taking the enhanced EU decision-making, as it was their proposal initially, and we are very happy for the Renew to get reinforced in democratic accountability.
Speaker 2
Okay. Thank you for causing so many problems now. Who wants to do the implementation report? Sorry. Sorry.
Sorry. Sorry. Excuse me. Yes. And please.
Speaker 15
Yeah. Thank you. Well, given our dire point situation, we have no interest in any of the files. However, we would like to support EPP on the enhanced EU decision-making through means provided for in the EU treaties, and we would throw our support behind Patriots for reinforcing democratic accountability. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Yeah. So, what do we do first with the implementation report? We don't need it. Is that common sense? Yes.
We don't need it. I'm relieved. Thank you. So then, the two other reports, yes, that is a bit of a problem. I mean, about this tradition that those who propose it can have it, I don't know.
That custom, I think, does not exist. It's a brutal market economy here, where you pay for what you want to do. Lorenz, again, maybe you?
Speaker 8
Chair, if I may make a suggestion, I think first we should decide on the own initiative reports and then see if there is still interest in the implementation reports, because there are different levels of reports, let's say. So let's decide on the first two and then see if there is interest in the committee of the region's implementation report. And this comes to the two own initiative reports. We need to take into account the points that the different groups have. It's not a majority decision in each case because then we find ourselves in a strange situation.
Speaker 2
Yes. This is at least what we agreed on together in the working methods. I mean, yes, EPPS 7.5 points, S and D 6 points, PFE and ECR and the Greens on the left, all 4 points, Renew, as already mentioned, 1 point, and ESN 2 points, which would mean, according to the points, the first own initiative report would go to EPP. And the second is a bit problematic because PFE and ECR both have four points, but you didn't want the second one. And you don't want the reinforcing democratic blah blah blah?
I know. If I cannot have this, give it to you.
Speaker 2
You're generous today. Enhance EU decision-making through the means provided for in the EU treaties.
Yes.
Speaker 2
I don't know. I mean, the hunt is the most powerful member of the house. So, I think we cannot change it here. And at least S and D are happy, then EPP has only 5.5, so you have the first choice next time.
Speaker 2
Think, if there is no consensus, then we have to use this point list, and then it's easy. So, on the second, I don't know. PFE, ECR ?
Daniel Freund
Then, if that's what's happening, we would like to buy the second one. And given that we have four points and 100% remaining, I think it's ours.
Speaker 2
Uh-huh. Okay. If that is so. Yeah. This remaining thing I hear for the first time.
Daniel Freund
If you look into the table share, then it says under the second asterisk: if two or more groups have the same number of points, priority shall be given to the group with the lowest relative usage rate, which is us.
That is true.
Speaker 9
Yes. But points have been blocked because of this commissioner hearing thing that isn't going through. So, technically, I have 6 points.
Speaker 33
This is a tricky one. You are a lawyer. No? What? I didn't hear your comment.
Daniel Freund
I just said then we get the commissioner hearings, I guess. I mean, we can.
Speaker 3
Do that if you like to. Yes. No? That would be a solution, and the house would be very happy. All my problems would be solved.
Speaker 21
We could support the Patriots for the year. But that does not help. Thank you very much.
Daniel Freund
But, Cher, I was just told that we follow the table, and that's why I cannot have the other report. And now I'm being told we're not following the table for this because something is blocked. I mean, I don't fully understand. Are we now following the table or not?
Speaker 2
Yeah. The problem is that this other report will never happen because the COP, or I don't know who, doesn't like it. And the argument is it would be unfair if BFE then has six points because the other report is not only blocked, it's killed. No?
Speaker 9
The table is wrong because we should never have allocated the file before we had CCC approval. And that's the point. I shouldn't have paid the points; therefore, the table is incorrect. So, we cannot rely on an incorrect table.
Speaker 2
Yes. We must change our working methods accordingly. We cannot allocate files before they have been approved by the COP. That needs to be done starting today. And then we can postpone the decisions because we first have to ask for those reports, and we can clarify the situation whether the Greens want to take over the commissioner hearings' reports when it's on the table or not.
But I think, yes, today we should postpone it then. And what about the implementation report? We can decide that we don't do it, or would you still like to wait?
Okay.
Speaker 8
The others, the old ones, are not decided, and they will never be. That's true.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I know. Yeah. That would be the fair way. And then you take the hearing's report.
If it's authorized.
Speaker 2
Yes. Know. It would be fair to say this was not authorized; this other report, so the six points still remain. And then the report would go to the BFE. That would be the fair solution, I think.
Daniel Freund
As far as I understand, there was a coordinator's decision. The report was allocated. So, I mean, the decision of the coordinator stands. No?
Speaker 3
Yes. But, I mean, if the COP doesn't authorize the report, do we need to wait, or how is that usually done?
Speaker 23
Oh, you can take the points back. And say the table was not correct. Actually,
Speaker 2
The table is not correct today because that other report doesn't exist. Yes. Then, they would have 6 points.
Speaker 9
But can we then infer what the table should say? Because, I mean, it should be six. 12 tablets.
I ask for six PFE. We need.
Speaker 2
Yes. But it is normal. When we allocate a file that is not authorized by the COP, the points go back to the group to which the file was allocated.
Speaker 8
SAPP, we have also already paid for the Rule of Law report that will not be authorized. So, we also have extra points that were not used.
It's not in the table.
Speaker 8
Yeah. We probably made a mistake in the first round when we allocated the files without the COP agreement on the files, and now we have to deal with it later.
Yeah. Just.
Speaker 2
Certainty. Yes, Juan Fernando. But if the table is wrong, because those two files will never happen, neither the rule of law nor the hearing file, then it's unfair if we say, okay. You lost the points, but you don't have the report. Should.
Speaker 9
The point is, Chair, we made a mistake at the beginning of this mandate by allocating files for which we did not have CCC approval. So, those decisions were wrongfully taken, and, therefore, those points should never have been paid until the CCC approval came in, which has never happened. So, we should defer the decision on those two files to a later stage, but the point should go back to the groups who have already paid for them. And I don't want to hear all this complaining about paying coin points because a lot of groups got files from the previous mandate that they didn't pay anything for, and we were quite generous in that regard.
Speaker 29
That's true. We actually paid. But anyhow, are we all in some kind of suspensive condition as to the allocation of files insofar as the conference of presidents is finally authorized or not? But because that is the thing, we should actually have legal certainty about which points each one of us political groups is accumulating and which ones we are running for and willing to pay for.
Speaker 2
But imagine you had chosen a report, and we had allocated it to you. And then the COP takes the decision not to authorize the report. Would you then think you would pay for the report? No. Of course not.
Daniel? Can we?
Speaker 8
Do you have a reconstruction of the table based on this data? And then everybody can hear how many points they have left.
Speaker 4
So the decision was postponed, and we decided on the next meeting. And first, we clarify what the COP is about. I can also ask the COP whether they will decide on that or not. Yes. We need legal certainty.
I absolutely agree. And we need to know what is going on at the COP with those two reports. For the Rule of Law report, we are still fighting. That was allocated as well. It was even allocated to the group.
Very disappointing situation, but it was a mistake. No. Yes. Okay. Then, we do not take any decision on this nominations item, nor on the implementation report.
Speaker 8
But just for clarity, in the first file, it stays with the APP. It was allocated.
Speaker 4
No. I think we should first clarify the table and the situation because then you...
We restart the whole process.
Speaker 2
Okay. Yeah. I think it is better to proceed like that in the situation we are in at the moment.
Yeah? Yeah.
Speaker 4
Maybe you come up with other nice ideas that please you, or maybe you wake up tomorrow morning and think, "Listen to myself." Was that so important? I don't know. Maybe not. Let's do something else.
Speaker 2
I talked to the rapporteur, the coordinator of the Greens, who unfortunately cannot make it today. I have a very good idea. Maybe that works. We will have to think about it. In the spirit of compromise, we postpone the decision until today.
Speaker 4
Item number three. On 12th February, a written procedure was launched concerning the selection of experts for the Afgherian on democracy and elections in the AI era, scheduled for March 18, and to be organized together with nearly all other committees of the House, with Liebe and EUDS, with the participation of IMCO and AFET. The proposals by political groups are provided for in Annex 1. And now you have to select one expert for the hearing and one who can, or maybe even two, shortlist who can replace if we are in the uncomfortable situation that one or the other does not appear or cannot make it. Lauren Vincent, which expert would you like to invite?
Speaker 8
It's complicated with so many committees, and we can support only one expert. Our support would go to Armin Rabic, democracy and election expert, and chair of electionwatch.eu. I understand that SND is also in favor of that person and, apparently, so is Liebe, but the decision has not been made. It will be interesting to see how we make a majority out of it. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Okay. This election watch doesn't sound very EPP-ish, but okay. Supply and Demand?
Speaker 7
Considering that Armin Rabbit has also been suggested by Libya and it's a joint hearing, we would try to prioritize Katja Munoz, research fellow at the Center for Geopolitics, Economy, and Technology. Katja will be our first choice. We didn't have an issue with Armin Rabbit, but he has already been suggested by another committee. So why not have some other person on board? I have it here.
Armin Rabic.
Speaker 7
We don't have an issue with Armin. But if possible, we make the combination with Cartier, as Armin is finally endorsed by Libya, as suggested.
Speaker 2
I didn't do a deep search or research on who those proposals are, but are they really experts on that topic? Don't we find real experts? I mean, we are talking about democracy and elections in the AI era. I don't know. But, PFE, what do you think?
Honestly,
Speaker 9
Chair, I'm already somewhat annoyed by the fact that Liebe and EUDS are both joining this hearing.
Speaker 9
Yes. But I think we also objected to that, so that has already been said. And from the people on the list, I tend to share your concern. I don't see how they're really relevant to the topic we are going to address. And if I had to choose from the list, I think I would prefer Ineschner Siso from the EPP's proposal for managing AI integration in government.
Speaker 34
I mean, at least it seems somewhat relevant, but not enthusiastic either way.
Speaker 13
Support Maria Tezake; also, according to your right criteria, she's a real expert who looks at their publication on the issue of democracy and artificial intelligence.
Daniel. We.
Daniel Freund
Also support. I could also live with Munoz as a second choice. I am not entirely clear how many we can put forward as Afco. One, it's one or two. Just one.
Speaker 2
Hmm. So that means we have a broad majority for Ines Nassizo. Yeah. And second, Kadiamunios. And third, Meritius Gaker.
Speaker 4
Okay? Then, we have this short list. Maybe the others don't come up, or we need a replacement if the others only propose one. Yes. So we have this short list, and then we...
Hmm.
Speaker 2
Yes, maybe a good outcome. All right. Item number 4. On February 16, a written procedure was launched to collect proposals for the European Court of Auditors Work Program 2027 plus. Suggestions made by political groups are provided in Annex II.
And here, I would like to hear your preferences. Laurent Vincent.
Speaker 8
On the ECA work program, we had two suggestions. We are bound by democratic accountability and neutrality in new funding to civil society, as well as legal coherence and consistent application of the financial regulation in civil society funding. These two. Thank you.
Juan Fernando.
Speaker 7
We got two suggestions, two proposals made by our group. One is the European fund and its impact on justice. And second, European funds and the funding of anti-rights movements. Anti-rights movement: the European Court of Auditors, in this regard, should investigate the extent to which European funding is actually used by NGOs and foundations that finance anti-rights movements across the EU. And as for the first, it's the extent to which European funding has strengthened access to justice for citizens, making it smoother, faster, more independent, more accessible—the so-called justice cohort.
That was the idea. We should also investigate the impact of the investments through EU funding on the digitalization of justice in the member states. Those are the points we would like to dwell on: the impact on justice and the funding of anti-right movements across the EU.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Chair. I like to support both proposals by the EPP. And our own proposals, I think, are quite self-explanatory, but I understand that we proposed quite a lot. So, if I had to give priority, it would be to numbers seven and eight. So, an audit of the ECJ with subsidiarity issues, which I think is a nice follow-up to the report on subsidiarity and proportionality.
And then number eight, an audit of the commission departments that should conduct impact assessments, which is something we've all been complaining about, I think. So, those two are my priorities. And then the two EPP proposals, I could also support.
Speaker 14
Isser? We could support the EPP and the PFE proposals. Thank you. Sandro?
Speaker 13
We didn't make any proposal to renew, but we support the proposal from SND on European funds and their impact on justice. Number 3 on the list.
Daniel Freund
The European Court of Auditors has just done a special report on civil society and NGOs, so I can invite colleagues to read that. It's fairly comprehensive. I know that you guys want to keep doing a weird campaign against civil society. There is a special working group in the committee. You can keep asking for these reports.
But quite honestly, I think at this point, the commission has done an audit. The European Court of Auditors has conducted a special audit. We, as parliament, are doing this special working group. I would say that at this point, it becomes a bit of a waste of taxpayer money if you keep digging in an area where there is clearly not a single case of misuse of funds actually identified. So, I would support the two proposals that the S and D colleagues have.
Put Nicholas.
Speaker 18
It seems to me that the EPP proposal is already covered. So we'd rather focus on very new topics proposed by the S and D, the European funds, and their impact on justice in European funds and funding on the anti-right movements.
Speaker 15
Yes. Yeah. Thank you. We would support the PFE proposals seven and eight, but we could also see ourselves supporting the EPP proposals one and two.
Speaker 2
Okay. That means we take 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8. Thank you. On the missions. We have a mission to Copenhagen with the main focus on the opt-out.
Do you have any comments on the draft proposal for the program? What should we add? Would you like to do nothing? Do we have this with the indigenous people? What do you call it?
Speaker 4
Last time when we were with Afed, there was a very interesting meeting about Inuit rights. It's an NGO, I don't know where, maybe. Yes. Where do we have it?
Speaker 4
Where is No.? No. No. There is an organization which is caring for the people of the Inuits who live in Denmark.
Just the ICC order.
Speaker 2
Okay. I found them. Any comments on those proposals? Yes. Daniel Freund.
Daniel Freund
Can I just ask for legal certainty? As far as I understand, they might call national elections in Denmark. Yes. I heard about it. Does that in any way put in doubt our mission?
Speaker 4
Yeah. It's May. If the elections always take place on Tuesday, and unfortunately they are scheduled for that Tuesday of that week, that would make it more difficult to find interlocutors, at least from the political side. But in the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of European Affairs, I mean, we will not meet the minister anyway. We will not meet the politicians anyway. So at the moment, I think since we are meeting more with the working-level parliament, yes, that is the chairman of the European Affairs Committee.
Speaker 2
I don't know whether she will be available on the day after the election. I don't know. This is in the making, but we don't know. I think we should not cancel it because what we want to find out, we can find out without politicians. And that is why I, in the moment, think that even when elections take place, we can keep the plan.
Daniel Freund
No. I fully agree. If possible, I'd like to maintain it. I was just asking because usually there's a rule that we don't go on a mission when there are elections. Right now, we couldn't have foreseen if it is only called now after all this.
I just want to make sure that it doesn't all get canceled once we have spent a lot of time finalizing the program.
Speaker 4
Maybe no one realizes it. I don't know. If you don't tell them, Okay. On Greenland, any comments?
Speaker 2
Do you have winter jackets? They might now have a reduced price or so. Okay. In the petition, item seven. Would anyone like to take the floor? Yes.
Yes, Juan Fernando. First of all,
Speaker 7
First of all, I have seen two petitions, one of particular interest to the Constitutional Affairs Committee's field of action. The one by Giancarlo Vara, Italian, Demos Italia, strengthening the EU and adopting the EU constitution. And the second one is unanimous voting in the council. And as for the unanimous voting in the council, I would gladly raise a point. And that point is precisely what we just heard, we just learned, actually, we just knew: that, again, there has been decision-making blocked in the council requiring unanimity, due to the lack of unanimity by just one member state, which happens to be Hungary.
And the thing is that it makes a full impact on the most serious matter, which is the support for Ukraine that we have been discussing today in Parliament. And the thing is that there is a way forward on this, and it affects the competences of decisions to be made by this European Parliament. And that way forward is Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Treaty of the European Union and Article 24, Paragraph 3 of the Treaty of the European Union, which relates to the loyal and sincere cooperation between member states when fulfilling their duties. When leaders reach a consensus, they are expected to deliver on it. Failure to deliver on it is a breach of the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in the treaties.
So that is a matter that could be brought to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice by this European Parliament. Not for the first time, the European Parliament has actually activated a case before the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice as to the extent of the principles enshrined in the treaties. I think it's worth discussing, and I'm calling your attention to the matter. So, maybe we have the Constitutional Affairs Committee; we have a role to play in this regard in order to overcome this situation that we have seen before, where decision-making was unfairly blocked in the council just by one member violating the principle of sincere cooperation. It's actually impeding 26 out of 27 to fulfill their duties in continuing to financially support Ukraine in its war effort. That is the consideration I wanted to bring regarding this petition for unanimity voting in the council because it actually makes sense.
Speaker 2
Okay. That means you would like me to write a letter to Yuri so that they discuss that issue? No?
Speaker 7
We could actually activate and exchange views with Yuri on the matter. So that we discuss it, whether we have a way forward or not, but at least we could discuss it. We could not let it go, nor forsake it. We could actually shed light on it.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I mean, the problem I see is so far away from illegal behavior because the treaties were intentionally drafted in that way for exactly the situation we face. Why should that be well?
Speaker 7
That's for the European Court of Justice to decide, but at least let's discuss it. Let's discuss whether we can say anything, a word on the matter, or simply remain silent or impotent. Should we or should we not? EPP, what do you think?
Speaker 8
It's like Spain's ratification of the electoral law. We said this argument that it's disloyal cooperation among the member states, namely one, and we said it's the right of the member state to proceed. So it is the right of each member state to use their veto. If not, then the council can go to court, and that's a different procedure. But what can we do as parliamentarians to see?
Speaker 7
Actually, let me correct you. There is no veto. There has not been any veto by Spain on the Electoral Act by any means. By no means. It's simply a missing link in the ratification in the so-called notification process, but Spain didn't veto a decision being endorsed by 26.
Even more.
Which is the case here.
Which case is this?
Speaker 3
No. It's just the political phrase "veto." They use their right to vote against the decision. It's their full right. Daniel?
Daniel Freund
Well, there is a petition on the question, and I think, for me, why not have a debate on this? And then everyone can express their opinion. I still mean, yeah, countries can vote, but there is a principle of sincere cooperation, and where the freedom to vote and sincere cooperation can clash is a valid debate that we can have in this committee. So for me, I can support at least abating it.
Speaker 2
I mean, first, we had a discussion today in plenary on more or less exactly this topic. But under a totally different environment and in a different context. And I think the discussion today was exactly the way we should have a discussion. But framing it as if there can be an infringement of the treaties, which is obviously not the case, I don't know why we should have such a debate in this context. It's no problem to have a debate like the one we had today.
Part of the House is in favor of sanctions, part is in favor of giving more money, and the other part is against giving more money. That was absolutely the right way to have this discussion. But to frame it like you can be a treaty infringement, I must say this committee is the one which should keep the rule of law for what it is and not allow it to be misused. And that would be an obvious misuse to frame it like that.
the before
Zander Gossey.
Speaker 8
No. I think it's procedural before it becomes political because the petitions committee dealt with this petition. They debated it. And their resolution was one of them. We don't know what the decision of the committee was, to send it as information to AFCO.
And this is our only role here: to read it and to take note of this petition that was discussed in the petitions committee. We have no other roles. We cannot, you know, jump in or start a different procedure because it is the prerogative of the petitions committee to do so. We can maybe learn some general conclusions out of it and make a proposal for agenda discussion, but not specifically on this.
Speaker 7
So, actually, a role is not limited to being notified. A role can also have a follow-up decision.
Speaker 2
Santo, you have a follow-up decision. See for any reason why I should act here and in which way.
Speaker 13
No. I mean, you're discussing, you missed the discussion. I mean, you were talking about something which can set the precedent in the cooperation between committees, and then you went on to the content and the morning debate. The two things are different. I like the idea of S and D because I think that if we are a little bit open and creative, and if we look at what are the main petitions coming from European citizens, and on some of those, as the Constitutional Affairs Committee, when they fall within our competence, we open discussions about the requests from the European citizens.
I think that we would all benefit. I mean, we probably wouldn't agree, but it would be very good if we not only took note of the petition, but also introduced a new way of working on some issues which we consider important for different reasons, because we all consider that the issue of unanimity and veto is important for different reasons. Some of us would like to get rid of the veto, so it is an important issue. Some of us will want to keep the veto, but it is an important issue to discuss. As European citizens, we come together to have a discussion on selected items on which we all agree are relevant, and I think that we all agree that unanimity and veto are relevant. This would be an innovation that would benefit the Parliament and us, and especially would be a very good signal to the citizens who devote their time to present a petition to this house.
Speaker 42
And I don't go into the content because this is not a discussion today.
Speaker 4
Yeah. But you are talking about a third topic, namely a political debate about whether we want to reduce the voting unanimity in the treaty or not. What I simply cannot agree to is that when the petitioner here speaks of an abuse of his right, I mean, why should we frame a discussion like that? I don't see the reason for that. There is the right to vote in favor of or against foreign policy.
Okay. We might like it or not, but it's not an abuse of the rule.
Speaker 7
There is another approach. There is a petition that has actually been filed by the petty committee, which is competent, okay? But we have been notified. We may have a follow-up, which is an exchange of views on unanimity in the council, just an exchange of views. And then we speak out our minds.
We speak out our minds.
Speaker 7
On that petition. Decision. That is a follow-up to organize and exchange your views, to reach unanimity as addressed.
Speaker 4
So, do you want a discussion in the AFCO committee on the topic of this petition, EPP? SND, yes. BFE, ECR, Renew, Greens, Left, ESN. There is no broad majority. We will have no discussion.
Okay.
Speaker 4
Any comments on the documents for information? No? This was not our best day. Any other business? I
Speaker 13
I have a chair. I understand that the decision of the conference committee chair is to have only 17 places each year for the mission of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. I think that this goes against common sense. Parliamentary diplomacy is increasingly important. We see that there is a growing external dimension also in our activities, and we have a decision from the conference committee chair, which reduced the number of members of the constitutional affairs committee who can go on mission each year to 17, apparently.
I think that we should raise this issue, saying that it is contradictory. If it is confirmed, this information, we should challenge this decision which goes, in my view, against common sense and against what is needed in this parliament.
Speaker 4
I could not agree more. I was fighting hard against this reform, and I was partly successful. You cannot imagine how strict the plans have been. I could also tell you who I think had an interest and who did not, but I was fighting hard. It was decided at the beginning of the term, I remember.
Or was it last term? No. Beginning. At the beginning of this term, they decided that, and I was heavily against it. And partly, I had success.
Speaker 2
It was by far even more limited and reduced. They only wanted that. Aved and Dave are traveling, and the rest are staying at home, including Inter. And the rest works here. But I've fought hard, and this is already a success, what we have.
It's a compromise. But I agree with you, and I think I should speak up when we have the situation because you are right. Any other business? Okay. The meeting is closed.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.