Brussels, 06/07/2010 (Agence Europe) - A really icy wind caught José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero full in the face on 6 July at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, where he had come to present the balance sheet for the Spanish Presidency of the EU during the first half of this year. The Spanish prime minister was effectively only able to count on the support of MEPs from the Socialist Group (S&D), his own political family, as well as that from the president of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, who particularly pointed out “the unprecedented measures” taken to guarantee eurozone stability and the “inestimable” contribution made by the Spanish Presidency to obtain a political agreement on the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS). Barroso even considers that the Belgian Presidency, which began on 1 July, “will be able to benefit from the significant boost provided by Spain”. The other speakers, apart from those from the S&D Group, gave Zapatero a hard time for both the “disappointing” results of his European presidency and his socio-economic and budgetary policy in Spain (an astonishingly high number of Spanish opposition MEPs made contributions).
In his reply at the end of the debate, Zapatero defended his European contribution and underlined that he would not reply to questions regarding Spanish domestic policy, “asked by those who are mixing up the Spanish National Assembly and the European Parliament”. The prime minister pointed out that the Spanish Presidency had two major objectives: implementation of the Lisbon Treaty and making progress towards economic union and a more competitive Europe. Zapatero declared that “we have attained these objectives … and we are satisfied by the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty”, which has been ensured without any major dysfunction between the institutions. In the context of the plan for economic governance, Zapatero said that they had done their duty. The EUROPE 2020 strategy had also been adopted, the work on enhancing the Stability and Growth Pact had made good progress, and the EU27 and EP were close to an agreement on the financial supervision package. In his summing up, Zapatero stated that “everything we said (for the Presidency) has been done. We have assumed responsibilities and we have comprehensively fulfilled our commitments in a satisfactory manner”.
The Spanish Presidency had also done everything possible to promote the “Community method” and respect the increased powers of the European Parliament, explained the prime minister. There had also been the Swift agreement, the “Open Skies” agreement with the US, continued accession negotiations with Croatia (all the chapters are now open) and Turkey (one chapter is now open), the go-ahead from the European Council to opening accession negotiations with Iceland, and confirmation of European prospects for Balkan countries during the Sarajevo meeting. The Presidency also managed to facilitate a political agreement between the Council and the Commission on the draft regulation implementing the European citizen initiative. Zapatero concluded that there had obviously been some disappointments such as the cancellation of the summit with the US or the postponement, in November, of the Union for the Mediterranean summit, but all of this did not hide the fact that this Presidency was coming to an end on a successful note.
This opinion was entirely shared by the head of the Socialist Group (S&D), Martin Schulz, who even welcomed “some of the extraordinary results” of the Spanish Presidency, such as the political agreement on the European Diplomatic Service (EEAS) and the Swift agreement. Mr Schulz welcomed the significant progress made in financial market regulation and thanked the Spanish Presidency for having supported the Community method and having defended the role of the Commission as the driving force for integration. “I am not sure that it is always the case at the European Council where there is a tendency towards renationalisation”, exclaimed Schulz. According to the latter, the permanent president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, “is certainly sympathetic but the rotating presidency of the EU remains Parliament's first point of contact”. Joseph Daul, the leader of the EPP Group, regretted that the summit with the US had been cancelled (“a missed opportunity for creating a transatlantic partnership”) and called for the setting up of a “transatlantic market”. Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE) said that the programme and goals of the Spanish Presidency were good ones, “but the result is disappointing” partly because there are member states that did not want to go any further in the area of economic governance and financial market supervision. In the domain of foreign policy, the Presidency could have acted with greater effectiveness if Spain had recognised the independence of Kosovo, explained Graf Lambsdorff, who also regretted the cancellations/postponements of the summits with the US and the UfM. He criticised the fact that a chapter had been opened in accession negotiations with Turkey, “on the last day of the Presidency, just to compensate the Turks for their vote at the UN on sanctions against Iran”. Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Greens) balked at the congratulations offered to the outgoing Presidency by the Commission, for several reasons, including the 2020 strategy, “which in reality is something altogether different”. The co-president of the Greens Group said that the problem is due to the fact that the EU will not have the necessary money to implement flagship initiatives because member states will still reduce the Community budget and give the pretext of the budgetary crisis, whereas, on the contrary, the EU should invest in relaunching a green and sustainable economy. Timothy Kirkhope (ECR) spoke about an “uninspiring Presidency”, which, at an economic level was “virtually invisible”. Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL) criticised the Spanish Presidency, which, like all the others, had pursued the “dismantling of the European social model” by supporting economic policy “based on the errors of the past”, which was making the workers and pensioners pay for the costs of the crisis. He also said that the Spanish Presidency should have suspended the association agreement with Israel, following the murderous military intervention against the humanitarian flotilla bound for Gaza. Marta Andreasen (United Kingdom, EFD) accused Zapatero and his government of having done nothing to protect the interests of British victims from “real estate predators” in Spain and who have, as a consequence, had to suffer repossession or demolition of their real estate. Andreasen even went as far as comparing the Spanish attitude with that of Robert Mugabe against the British in Zimbabwe (which provoked a dry retort from Zapatero, who judged these comparisons as “unacceptable”. He emphasised that Spain was a state of law, where they had courts to settle these cases and apply the law.
Among the Spanish MEPs who spoke, the critical contribution made by the Non-Attached MEP Sosa Wagner Franciso should be underscored (“a Presidency that shone by its absence in the economic domain”) as well as those by Jaime Mayor Oreja (EPP), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE) and Raul Romeva I Rueda (Green) ( “Your Presidency failed because it was based on the Europe of markets and states instead of the Europe of citizens”),by Ramon Tremosa I Balcells (ALDE) who criticised a “poor Presidency, without leadership”, and by Luis De Grandes Pascual (EPP) and the Green Oriol Junqueras Vies (“Your six months have been a failure”). Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar (S&D) highlighted “the extremely difficult context” in which the Spanish Presidency had to operate. He said that the economic governance had, all the same, made some progress, thanks to the boost provided by the Presidency. Zita Gurmai (S&D, Hungary) was also positive: “the programme did not lack ambition, the Spanish Presidency did a lot for defending the rights of women and I hope that this will continue under the Belgian Presidency”, she said. (H.B./transl.fl)