The President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, will invite MEPs and staff of the European institution in mid-April to reflect on the Parliament of the post-Covid-19 future, as part of an initiative called ‘Rethink parliamentary democracy’. In an interview with EUROPE, he called for the European Union to be given new powers in the area of public health, as was the case after the mad cow crisis in the early 2000s. He also considered it necessary to prioritise the work of the Conference on the Future of Europe, which, in his view, should not necessarily conclude its work in a year’s time. (Interviewed on Wednesday 24 March by Mathieu Bion)
Agence Europe - Since your election in July 2019, has the promise to bring the European Parliament closer to the citizens been kept?
David Sassoli - In 2019, we were coming out of elections where Europe had to find itself after a particularly powerful nationalist, sovereigntist assault. The only way forward was to reconnect the institutions to the citizens.
Two very important events took place. The first was to define a long-term vision for Europe. The European Green Deal is a vision that Europe offered to our societies to work towards saving the planet.
Then we entered the Covid-19 phase, on a planet that had stopped. The European Parliament has kept the European Union alive. None of the European Commission’s initiatives would have been implemented without its endorsement.
Now we face a third challenge, which is to ensure that the vaccination process is adequate. Of course, in this phase we really feel the absence of real European jurisdiction. There has been a substitution of roles to the benefit of the European institutions, but without the latter having the jurisdiction.
And this has created many misunderstandings, delays, even naivety. That is why we can only emerge from this phase with a European public health policy. And therefore with a transfer of powers from the national sphere to Europe.
With a treaty change?
We need to take the same approach to public health as we did with the mad cow crisis.
We have created the European Animal Health Policy, which works. Now we have to do it for human health. Because if that isn’t what emerges from the Covid-19 crisis, we will probably not succeed in facing any other challenges.
Is Europe’s future at stake with Covid-19 vaccination?
Certainly. We need to be more efficient, that’s clear.
But the Covid-19 crisis also tells us that we will not go back to the world of before. Many economic paradigms need to be reviewed, corrected, because the world of the past created a lot of inequalities. And we want these inequalities to be overcome when the crisis ends. We need adequate powers to meet these challenges.
Is blocking exports of vaccines to uncooperative non-Member States justified?
We need a clear commitment from the (pharmaceutical) companies to respect their commitments to us.
What if they don’t respect the contract?
We must act. The Commission said (on Tuesday 23 March) that in the contract with AstraZeneca, which is the only problematic company, the company had committed itself to production at five manufacturing sites (see EUROPE 12684/13). However, only one is in operation. This is a breach of contract, because it is clear that the supply is much lower than the vaccine doses required.
A report by Transparency International criticises the functioning of Parliament, including the existence of internal bodies that are not accountable to the political sphere and the risk of conflicts of interest for MEPs who receive income in addition to their political activities (see EUROPE 12651/22). How can this situation be remedied?
We need to work to increase transparency. The Transparency International report also notes that progress has been made since the last Parliament. Of course, more needs to be done.
I believe that Parliament must rethink itself. The initiative to open a broad discussion with MEPs and the parliamentary administration about the Parliament of the future will also be very useful to increase the level of transparency. Where there is more transparency, democracy works better, not only in its mechanisms, but also because of the trust it generates.
What process do you want to initiate?
It is time to reflect on Parliament and its relationship with the citizens. We have adopted measures on the use of technology, on legislative processes, on trilogues. What will the post-Covid-19 Parliament be like? Will it be like the one before? Will we throw away everything that has been done? How do we want to reorganise?
I want to invite all parliamentarians to this discussion, which will take place in a very open, pluralist and free manner.
I will present a proposal in mid-April and we will start the reflection immediately after, with workshops. This idea factory will be open until the autumn. Then we will hand over this work to the bodies of the European Parliament. And I believe that this could also be useful to national parliaments.
Has the hemicycle resulting from the European elections in May 2019 produced a pro-European parliamentary majority that works on a daily basis?
We have a very strong Europeanist majority in the European Parliament.
Europeanism is not an ideology, it is an institutional framework in which we develop debate and initiatives. It’s like being a republican in France. It is a framework that many wanted to demolish. The sovereigntists want to demolish it. Trump sought to tear it down. Secondly, all political sensibilities exist within Europeanism. In the European Parliament, too, there are many sensibilities.
After the departure of the Hungarian Fidesz party from the Christian Democratic family (see EUROPE 12681/16), do you expect a reorganisation of Europhobic and sovereigntist forces to fight Europe?
There is a very clear decision by the European People’s Party in favour of the Rule of law. We will see which family the Fidesz squad will find a home in.
But Covid-19 has defeated nationalism. Because with Covid-19, all citizens have understood that we cannot do it alone. When we realise that there is a need for solidarity, for cooperation, nationalism is defeated.
The current merit of the European institutions is to recognise that we will not get out of Covid-19 alone. And even the fact that the EU institutions have been given tasks, for example on vaccines, demonstrates this. If they had not been given such tasks, we would have seen a war between the strongest and the weakest.
The conference on the future of Europe has finally been launched...
The European Parliament got everything it asked for.
Apart from the Presidency...
We have obtained all the elements that Parliament requested. It was a long process to convince the other institutions. The Conference will have the merit of being developed with all of the EU institutions. But Parliament got everything that is in its resolution of January 2020. It is an extraordinary success.
It will be very important to define the agenda and objectives to work on. And above all, to find ways of involving civil society, because we want a process that is open to citizens.
With tangible results in just one year?
On this point, communication has been poor. The Conference does not have a fixed end. It will not end within a year. In a year’s time, during the French Presidency (of the EU Council in the first half of 2022), we will have an assembly, a public event where we will summarise the year’s work.
So I think that identifying targets to be achieved within a year will allow them to be introduced in the second part of the legislature.
But nowhere does it say that the Conference will last for one year.
Do we need to talk about head of list candidates (‘Spitzenkandidaten’) in the European elections?
The Parliament is putting various issues on the table: the question of Spitzenkandidaten, transnational lists, the right of veto (in the EU Council), European public health policy. I think that at least these issues should be answered within a year.
The first event of the Conference will take place on 9 May. It is up to its Executive Committee to establish the modalities.
Do we know when the Parliament will return to Strasbourg? You recently made a brief stopover there before returning to Brussels...
Strasbourg is the seat of the European Parliament. We are eager to return as soon as possible. Unfortunately, virus circulation in the region remains very high.
Were the staff of the European Parliament greatly affected?
We had a very high peak of cases between October and November 2020. Since then, we have resumed participation in the plenary sessions, with a respectable level of physical participation.
The situation in Belgium is serious, so we have to continue the work both face-to-face and remotely.