Liberals propose radical amendments to constitutional articles

12.00.00am GMT Fri 28th Mar 2003

In numerous amendments submitted yesterday to the Convention secretariat, Liberal members of the Convention have sought to bolster the justice and home affairs policies of the Union.

The amendments, which will be debated at the plenary session of the Convention on 3-4 April, reinforce the efforts of the Convention Praesidium to make a clear separation of the legislative from the executive powers of the Council and to install fully-fledged parliamentary democracy into this sensitive field.

In a separate number of amendments, the Liberals push the Convention towards a more radical reform of the budgetary system of the EU. Their intention is to simplify and shorten the annual budgetary process, make the financial disciplines tougher and to extend the Parliament's power of the purse across the whole range of EU spending.

Andrew DUFF, who chairs the ELDR caucus in the Convention has also criticised the Praesidium for their lack of self-confidence in following the logic of the Convention's decision to merge the Third Pillar with the First.

Duff argues that "mere repetition of the residuary powers and traditions of the Member States does not make those powers in themselves any more entrenched.

"The fact that many of the policy choices in this field are politically sensitive is not a surprise. Nor is it unique. There is no equation that says that the Union has to apply democracy in inverse proportion to controversy. Clinging to unanimity in the Council because European integration is less mature in this field does not guarantee perfection. On the contrary, it threatens sclerosis. The Praesidium should be more willing to use enhanced QMV to replace unanimity.

"The constitutional necessity to separate out the way the Union exercises legislative power over the essential elements of the free movement of persons from its exercise of executive power in the operational fields of internal security should be crystal clear. Blurring the distinction between the two assists neither comprehension nor legal certainty."