A sense of responsibility. Debate at the European Parliament is gradually gaining in substance and import. Back in the days when the EP had few powers other than that of expressing an opinion, rhetoric was the order of the day if one's voice was to be heard. The EP is now, however, co-legislator on an equal footing with the EU Council of Ministers and is becoming the most effective institution for promoting the European project. The debate this week about the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU and about financial supervision demonstrate that most MEPs have the main aim of getting the EU to move forward. If that means vetoing a Council of Ministers' project, then the door is left open for a compromise solution to be found as long as the most important aspects are not jeopardised.
Eurosceptics welcome here. In my opinion, something that has boosted the EP's prestige and effectiveness is the fact that there are Eurosceptics in its midst. They clearly have the right to defend their views and their votes reflect in terms of weighting the number of people who backed them in the electorate. Their involvement in debate and voting at the EP destroys the myth that there is no room in the EU set-up for anyone who disagrees with the European project. Nigel Farage said the Icelanders were “lucky” to have the choice not to join the EU and urged them to weigh up the matter carefully before joining. This is wise advice - every country wishing to join the EU should carefully consider what joining would mean in practice. If a country does not share the EU's common objectives and will not pledge to stick to the rules, then it is better not to join.
In the media, however, there is still a distinct taste for sensational bad news. In yesterday's column, I briefly discussed the problems surrounding supervision of the money markets and the problems and disagreements to be overcome, but the media usually prefers to simply describe the situation as “deadlock” rather than ongoing debate, preferring to talk about European authority being dynamited rather than simply noting that there are disagreements.
Pithy phrases. In the debate about the money markets, the effectiveness of the United States in pushing through new over-arching legislation is often favourably compared with the problems in the EU of having to get 27 different countries to agree on every point. Liberal MEP Sylvie Goulard, who likes a pithy phrase, commented that “People can't go around rejecting a federal Europe and yet constantly comparing the EU with a federal country like the United States”. Food for thought. The system has been set up, but… I have focused this week on business and financial issues and have made no mention in my list of European project success stories of the formal confirmation of the agreement between the EP, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission on the EU's new diplomatic corps. The MEPs have pointed out the importance of this move (see yesterday's newsletter). The new corps, that will gradually introduce a common European foreign policy, will be operational in a few months' time and should make the idea of a common EU defence policy less of a pipedream. But we should not be over-enthusiastic because it is one thing to formally set up a new body and quite another to get it working properly. A wealth of questions still need to be answered and I will be returning to this.
Barack Obama and Turkey joining the EU. In an interview this week, the president of the United States said that he supported the idea of Turkey joining the EU, saying it would make sense. This is understandable for the United States. Barack Obama says that Turkey looking elsewhere in the world and taking unfortunate moves (like its attempt to be a power-broker in the Iran nuclear question) is because it has the impression that it does not belong to the European fold. Obama believes that Turkey has to be shown the benefits of being part of the West. I have tried in my column to show that Turkey dipping its toe into Asian politics is because it wants to vent its power to the east for reasons of national interest and it will never abandon such attempts. In my view, phrases like being part of the West are unfortunate.
Martin Schulz is right. I believe that the chair of the Socialist Group at the EP, Martin Schulz, is right to call for a clarification debate in the EU about member states' views on Turkey joining the EU. Pretending to continue with the negotiations when they are in virtual deadlock and when Sarkozy and Merkel have openly said that they would prefer a different option is hypocritical and treacherous towards Turkey. Schulz said continuing with this attitude is the best way to destroy the EU's good relations with Turkey. He is right.
(F.R./transl.fl)