On Monday 6 October, the members of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) held an initial exchange of views on the new association agreement between the EU and Morocco (see EUROPE 13721/15). All the political groups regretted that the European Parliament had not had its say prior to the provisional application of the agreement, which took effect on 3 October (see EUROPE 13724/30).
The Chair of the INTA Committee, Bernd Lange (S&D, German), even said he was shocked by the approach. “This goes completely against the interinstitutional agreement between the Commission and the European Parliament”, he stressed.
The European Commission’s manoeuvre was described as unacceptable and non-transparent by the various MEPs who took part in the debate.
In response, the members of the European Commission present at the debate pointed out that the very tight timetable meant that the European Parliament could not be consulted before 4 October, the date on which the Court’s annulment took effect.
“We only received the political signal in June”, said Maria Isabel Garcia Catalán, from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union. She went on to explain that the preparatory work and negotiations with Morocco were then extremely rapid.
The content of the agreement. For the EPP, Renew Europe, PfE and ECR groups, the continuity of exchanges made possible by this new agreement is good news. A number of MEPs from these ranks stressed the strategic importance, in their view, of the EU-Morocco partnership.
They did not take a clear position on the changes to the agreement, which must in particular take into account the notion of the consent of the people of Western Sahara.
The Commission is proposing to use implied consent, as provided for in the Court ruling, which must be based on tangible benefits for the target populations.
For this reason, the Commission has promised, in a statement, to finance infrastructure and education projects for the Western Sahara region, as well as humanitarian aid for the Tindouf refugee camps.
The other change made involves labelling products from this region according to their exact origin, although they will still be subject to Moroccan customs control.
Neither of these two solutions is satisfactory in the eyes of the S&D, the Greens/EFA and The Left. “We know that Western Sahara is an occupied territory. By not applying a policy of differentiation between Sahrawis and Moroccan settlers, the Commission could find itself in the awkward position of incentivising occupation, and continued denial of self-determination”, said Lynn Boylan (The Left, Irish), the European Parliament rapporteur on the subject.
Her colleagues Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D, Belgian) and Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Greens/EFA, Spanish) were equally unconvinced by the solutions proposed by the Commission.
Nor, in their view, does labelling resolve the issue. Especially since the clear mention of Western Sahara will not necessarily appear on the products, but rather the name of the town or region, which are less well known to the public.
A number of MEPs from The Left, S&D and the Greens/EFA will be asking the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, in a letter that is still gathering signatures, to take action against the Commission for having excluded the European Parliament from the decision and not having taken sufficient account of the CJEU ruling.
See the letter: https://aeur.eu/f/itm (Original version in French by Léa Marchal)