Guy Verhofstadt qualifies EP's vote as historic. Guy Verhofstadt, the chair of the Liberal Group at the European Parliament, made no bones about it - describing the rejection at the European Parliament of the draft Swift agreement on the transfer of Europeans' bank details to the United States as a “historic day in Strasbourg… but not yet in Brussels”. Why? In his opinion, the new balance between the EU Council of Ministers and the European Parliament has been struck. It is no longer simply an article from the new EU Treaty - the EP has bared its teeth and put its new powers into action. The Council of Ministers has been shown that it will have to listen to the European Parliament. No doubt Verhofstadt had other burning issues at the back of his mind when he made that comment - like keeping an eye on the financial world (an issue under discussion by various EP committees).
A historic vote then, according to the chair of the Liberal Group, and a vote that was more important than any decisions made by the informal European summit last Thursday. We discussed the motives for his views at great length in Friday's issue of the newsletter, and quoted the president of the EP, Jerzy Buzek, from his speech to the EU heads of state at that very summit (“The Lisbon Treaty has changed the balance of power in the EU and we must draw conclusions from this (…) Governments have to accept that the EP will use its veto”). I suggest readers examine the analysis made by our reporters in Friday's newsletter and their assessment of the repercussions of the EP's rejection of Swift, the complicated legal niceties this gives rise to and the Commission's desire to reach a new agreement with the US on the transfer of Europeans' bank details. So why raise the issue again in my column? To underline the importance and significance of the Swift vote, the legal complications of which may cause dismay to people of a genuine European spirit.
What is at stake. I will start by pointing out how important this issue is. On the one hand, it is a matter of protecting individuals against terror attacks. On the other hand, ensuring respect for people's fundamental rights and equal treatment in relations with the United States is crucial. In the debate ahead of the vote on Thursday (assessed in detail in issue 10075), the EU Council of Ministers and the European Commission recalled the importance of the United States' programme to combat the funding of terrorism in order to prevent terror attacks and arrest suspects. This is the programme that would have had access to the bank details of Europeans provided by the financial services company Swift, to the benefit of not only the US, but also of any other country at risk from terror attacks, including in the EU. Most MEPs speaking in the debate slammed the deal as unacceptable because it fails to answer key questions like how the bank information is to be stored, who will be able to access it and how long it will be kept. Any deal must respect people's rights and be negotiated on an even footing with the United States.
The resolution rejecting the Swift deal was voted through by a clear majority - 376 to 196, with 31 abstentions. The EU Council of Ministers and Commission admitted that the deal contained shortcomings; the president of the Council of Ministers even asked for three months to work on the draft deal before submitting a revised version to the EP, and the Commission said it would publish a request in the next few weeks for a negotiating mandate to sign a new, longer-term Swift deal. This request and the Commission's submission were conditional upon the EP postponing its vote on the draft deal, but by a vote of 305 to 290 the EP refused to do so. Back to the drawing board, therefore, and the Council of Ministers and Commission will have to see whether the US is prepared to enter new negotiations.
The key question. Guy Verhofstadt has taken a leading role in this issue right from the start in order to strike a proper balance between security issues and the institutional balance in Europe, listing five conditions (backed by the Conference of Presidents of the EP's political parties) to be met in order for the draft deal to be backed by the EP. The Council of Ministers only met three of them, and only partially at that. I therefore asked Guy Verhofstadt what I see as the key question. Doesn't the EP's rejection of the deal run the risk of making it easier to launch terror attacks? Isn't the life of just one child more important than asserting the powers of the EP in a battle of wills with the Council of Ministers? He did not dodge the issue in his response, saying that there are tools in operation that protect against terrorism and it need not take a long time to negotiate an acceptable, healthy deal. If this is true, and the EP vote does not damage the anti-terror fight, then Guy Verhofstadt will be confirmed in his avant-garde role in the fight for a more integrated, more effective European Union that plays a crucial role on the world stage.
(F.R./transl.fl)