No sooner was it presented than it was discussed. Immediately following the presentation, on Wednesday 1 March, of the White Paper on the future of Europe, the European Parliament’s political groups positioned themselves on the various scenarios proposed (see other article).
To the question posed by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, “Quo vadis Europa?”, all the political groups immediately joined the fray in a plenary session debate in Brussels with reactions as diverse as the content of the White Paper. The call from Juncker for a wide-ranging debate was taken to heart, with some delving into the proposed scenarios and other seeking to show a degree of creativity.
Parliament President Antonio Tajani opined that making MEPs the first to hear the Commission’s options was the right way to do things. He made the point that Parliament, too, had approved three texts setting out its vision for the future of Europe (see EUROPE 11727). In his view, the celebration in Rome at the end of March to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome must not be a festival of remembrance but must provide the opportunity to “work for the future, by seeking to give our fellow citizens positive responses on the major choices that Europe has to make”.
Speaking on behalf of the EPP Group, Esteban Gonzalez Pons (Spain) welcomed Juncker’s action without taking a position on any one of the options offered. He said that, taken in isolation, none of the scenarios responded to current needs. He suggested, therefore, a sixth scenario that would bring together the five set out which are not, he argued, mutually exclusive.
For the S&D Group, there is no need for any tinkering, since the scenario of closer integration in all areas and all 27 member states together (Scenario 5) is the only one possible. Nonetheless, group leader Gianni Pittella (Italy) said he was disappointed at the Commission’s choice. This disappointment derives from the lack of a clear plan to strengthen the EU. Taking Juncker at his word that he was leading a resolutely political Commission, Pittella was critical of an approach worthy of a simple administration.
The ECR Group was clearly drawn to Scenario 4: “doing less more efficiently”. The scenario that would reduce the Union to the single market, equally, was to its liking. Speaking on behalf of the group, Ulrike Trebesius (Germany) stated that the idea of focussing efforts at EU level on selected areas for action, such as tackling terrorism or protecting borders, seems to be the best, even if a bigger dose of flexibility has to be delivered for the member states.
Guy Verhofstadt argued that the debate had clearly to be reduced to two scenarios. Either the 27 member states decide to focus on key areas (Scenario 4) or they take the path of broader and more extended integration (Scenario 5). An inter-institutional conversation now has to be opened as there is a need for an offensive, arguing positively for the European project, he said, on behalf of the ALDE Group, suggesting that the basic problem is that the EU is still a “loose confederation”.
The GUE/NGL Group also called for a wide-ranging debate but, would prefer it to be conducted among citizens, with the aim of bringing about a real change of direction, according to Patrick Le Hyaric (France). A change of direction was also advocated by Philippe Lamberts (Belgium), for the Greens/EFA Group. Arguing that people’s mistrust of the EU is deeper than the White Paper suggests, he said that what was needed was a new approach and the courage to tell the “historic truth”, that is to say, that it is not possible to build a monetary union without political, social, tax and democratic union.
For the EFDD and EFL Groups, the White Paper is nothing but a disappointment. They were highly critical that the same ideas were time after time put back on the table without ever recognising that the Union is the cause of most of the current ills. (Original version in French by Jan Kordys)