Added
information: Original
header - VI. The procedures: possible
extension of codecision
and qualified majority voting to areas where unanimity is required at present
53. The present situation was outlined, in particular with respect to the amendments
made by the Treaty of Nice, which would enter into force on 1 February 2003. In the
social field, the Council acts by adopting directives in codecision with the European
Parliament. These directives set minimum rules.
54. Currently, the Council can adopt minimum requirements by qualified majority, with
the exception of four areas for which the unanimity rule applies, with consultation of the
European Parliament:
55. It was recalled that the Treaty of Nice stipulates that, by a unanimous decision,
in the
case of three of the subjects mentioned above - subparagraphs (d), (f) and (g) - the
Council can, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European
Parliament, provide for recourse to codecision with the Parliament and majority voting
(application of Article 251).
56. Member States retain the possibility of applying standards which give workers
greater protection (137(5)).
57. Several members of the Group pointed out that the provisions of "Social Europe"
were not confined to Articles 136 and 137 but also concerned Articles 13 (non-
discrimination), 42 (social security arrangements) and 93, 95(2) and 175 (tax). The
debate should also relate to their possible transition to qualified majority voting. It was
furthermore recalled that the Nice Treaty (Article 144) established a social Protection
Committee with advisory status to promote cooperation on social protection policies
between Member States with the Commission.
58. The group recognised that it was necessary to modernise and improve Community
rules for the protection of the social rights of workers who exercise their right to mobility.
59. In agreement with the conclusion of Working Group IX, the Group confirmed that
codecision with qualified majority voting should become the rule for the adoption of
legislative acts and that exceptions to this rule would remain in areas where the special
nature of the Union requires autonomous decision-making, or in areas of great political
sensitivity for the Member States. The Group debated at length the prospect of amending
these provisions by expanding the field of qualified majority voting. The members
belonging to the Group were divided into two categories of unequal weight:
-
according to an active minority, comprising, among others, a number of government
representatives, the discussions which had been held at Nice concerning the
extension of the scope of qualified majority voting should not be reopened. The
balance achieved at that time was satisfactory. According to their position, the
existing provisions should therefore remain unchanged. In addition, as the Treaty of
Nice was only about to enter into force, it would seem inappropriate to consider
amending it now when its provisions, particularly those making an extension of
qualified majority voting possible, had not yet been able to demonstrate their
effectiveness. These members opposed to any move towards QMV, whilst
recognising that QMV in European policy making should be the norm, insisted that
for reasons of national diversity based on the particular traditions and cultures of
Member States, it should not automatically be extended to social security and
employment relations where Member States have different systems. They indicated
that what works well in one country may not be appropriate in another. They
therefore re-affirmed the Nice settlement in this matter.
In the meantime, they pleaded for the Council to be empowered to consider how to
address issues of cross-border mobility in the social field.
-
conversely, for most members of the Group, it was possible as of now to envisage
improvements to the existing arrangements. In particular they stressed that
enlargement makes improvements essential; the status quo would lead in practice
to it being impossible for the Union to adopt any regulation in the areas requiring
unanimity. Some wanted across- the-board use of qualified majority voting covering
not only Article 137(1) but also Articles 13, 16, 42, 95(2) and 175 of the Treaty.
Others envisaged limited extension. Where limited extension of qualified majority
voting was raised, the provisions quoted most often as having to remain subject to
unanimity were those relating to social security schemes and to conditions of
employment for third-country nationals. Finally, some took up the line of argument
developed under point III above, whereby a better definition of powers would facilitate
acceptance of qualified majority voting.
- A "superqualified
majority vote" of 75% was recommended by some as a possible
compromise.
60. On the basis of discussions within the Group, it appeared that general use of
qualified majority voting would be difficult to contemplate. On the other hand, some
progress could be envisaged, such as the transition to qualified majority voting of
subparagraphs (d), (f) and (g) of existing Article 137(1). As such a prospect has already
been made possible by the Treaty of Nice, for the purposes of clarification and
simplification, it could be applied in the future Constitution. It is hard to imagine that it
could not be determined, merely by reading the constitutional text, whether a particular
subject fell under a specific adoption procedure (qualified majority or unanimity).
However, that would indeed be the situation if Article 137(2) emerging from Nice were
incorporated as it stood into the constitutional Treaty.
61. Most members of the Group consider that the starting point for a possible consensus
could be that the transition to the procedure in Article 251 (qualified majority and
codecision) for Article 137(1)(d) as provided for in the Treaty of Nice, should apply in the
future Constitution. This would leave subparagraph 137(1)(c) still subject to unanimity.
The "bridging" provision introduced in 137(2) would be deleted.
62. The Group agreed that a better clarification of the scope of European action could
be
envisaged in order to facilitate general use of qualified majority voting. In this context, the
scope and language of Article 137 could be updated and modernised, in particular as
regards matters currently falling under the unanimity rule, in order to address the specific
concerns which some argue require the continuation of unanimity. This task should take
place when the Convention comes to consider Part II of the Preliminary Draft
Constitutional Treaty.
Nevertheless, some members already proposed a rewording of article 137(1)(c) which
would read as follows: "the social security and social protection of workers excluding
their financing organisation". They advocated that with such a new wording, qualified
majority voting and codecision should be applied. On this point, one member specifically
requested that attention be paid to the problems that could be faced by Member States
with mainly tax financed social security systems and that the possibility of derogations
for such Member States be foreseen.
Most members of the Group agreed that the wording of Article 137(1)(f) was unclear
and
that the necessity of keeping it in the Constitution should be investigated.
Regarding Article 137(1)(g), some Members insisted on keeping unanimity. Mention
must be made that this matter, i.e. the conditions of employment for third-country
nationals legally residing in Community territory is closely linked with Article 63(4) TEC,
which currently
causes problems as both provisions deal with matters which should be treated together
while the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark have an opt out for Article 63(4). The
Group therefore recommend that the relationship between these two legal bases should
be clarified and that the conditions of employment of third- country nationals should be
dealt with in Article 63(4). The Group recalls the recommendation made by WG XI to
move to qualified majority voting and codecision for Union legislation in the areas dealt
with in Article 63 TEC.
63. Most members of the Group pleaded for codecision with qualified majority voting
to
be applied to Articles 13 and 42 TEC.
