Brussels, 22/02/2000 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs, chaired by Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra) held on 21 February a rather lively initial debate on the detailed draft resolution on Parliament's proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reform, just tabled by Giorgios Dimitrakopoulos (Nea Demokratia) and Jo Leinen (SPD), who earlier served as rapporteurs on Parliament's opinion on the IGC. Mr Napolitano called for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to adopt the final resolution at its meeting on 22 and 23 March, to enable EP President Nicole Fontaine to have the text on the IGC at her disposal (even if it has not been adopted by the plenary yet) when she participates in the Lisbon European Summit on 23 and 24 March. Debate took place in the presence of several members of national parliaments (including two former MEPs, Christian de la Malène of France and Andrea Manzella of Italy). Giorgio Napolitano recalled that, following the success of the meeting on 1 February (see EUROPE of 3 February, pages 5 and 6), national MPs who wished to attend were invited on a permanent basis to the committee's debates on the IGC, so that a position could be "built that reflects as far as possible the demands", of the national parliaments.
German Social Democrat Jo Leinen presented the proposals on the institutions, stressing the need to guarantee the smooth operation and subsequent democratisation of the institutions in a Union whose number of members will have "almost doubled". Mr Leinen stated that, under these proposals (which correspond in part to those formulated in the Commission's opinion on the IGC, Ed.):
- until 2009, the scale for the number of Members of the European Parliament per Member State would remain unchanged from today's and would also apply to Members from new Member States; starting in 2009, the number of seats would be capped at 700 and membership would be proportional to the population, with one correction: a "guarantee" of a minimum of four seats for the smallest States (which Mr Leinen named: Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus). Further, starting in 2009, 10% of MEPs would be elected on a European list: as a European list needs European parties, there is also a need to strengthen Treaty provisions on European political parties (notably Article 191, Ed.).
- for Council decisions adopted by qualified majority, the rule would be a simple majority of Members representing at least the majority of the total population of Member States of the Union. Mr Leinen remarked that, even in a Union of 21 to 28 members, use of this system would mean that the quorum for qualified majority would be more or less the same as at present, between 67 and 71% of votes. Further, according to the rapporteurs, the system of the rotating Council Presidency should be revised ("but we have no suggestions on how to do so", noted Mr Leinen);
- the European Commission would be made up of its President and 20 Members. Mr Leinen stated that this ceiling would be matched with a guarantee: a rotation under which each Member State would have a Commissioner in five Commissions out of sevens. In addition, the rapporteurs propose that the Commission President be entitled to raise the issue of confidence before Parliament, with a vote of non-confidence leading to resignation of the Commission;
- the Court of Justice would keep one Judge per country but would operate by Chambers, the Committee of the Regions would have a maximum of 250 members and the Economic and Social Committee a maximum of 350 members (it would also be composed of representatives not only of the economic and social sectors, but of civil society as well), and the Court of Auditors would have a fixed number of Members;
- voting by qualified majority would become the general rule (with the exception of decisions of a "constitutional nature": Treaty amendments, accessions, own resources, etc.) and codecision would be extended (including to visa policy, asylum, immigration, taxation, economic and monetary policy, CAP and fisheries, Ed.);
- Parliament would issue assent to Treaty amendments and international agreements.
- to "constitutionalise" the Treaties, they would be simplified and consolidated into a single, two-part text, the first of which would be constitutional in nature;
- enhanced cooperation would be possible as soon as it involved one third of Member States.
Nea Demokratia MEP Giorgios Dimitrakopoulos outlined the proposals on EU "policies", after addressing a subject that is very sensitive in certain countries (including his own, Greece), namely enhanced cooperation: in the recent past, this idea has given rise to squabbles, with people claiming that the "big States are trying to smother the small ones", but this idea is a good one provided it is considered an incentive, an "encouragement" to those momentarily not participating in enhanced cooperation, he affirmed. He went on to mention: - the CFSP, noting that the IGC negotiators would have to say what Treaty changes would be required by the common foreign and security policy (Mr Dimitrakopoulos also said that protection of territorial integrity is an objective of the Union); - internal policies, saying that they would have to be discussed "one day or another", mentioning the budget, trade policy (on which the resolution requests codecision, Ed.) and economic policy; - policies the draft resolution suggests introducing into the Treaty, namely energy, tourism and establishment of a European air space. (Italian Senator Andrea Manzella observed here that, if there are to be additions, provisions on sport should be added to the Treaty).
During debate, British Labour MEP Richard Corbett expressed certain reservations, observing in particular that Parliament should concentrate on the essentials, whereas the text tabled also contains "desirable" but not indispensable things (such as the election of 10% of MEPs on European lists, an idea on which Parliament is "divided"). He also noted that there is a need to begin adjusting the number of MEPs in 2004, rather than taking a "giant leap" in 2009, which would be politically more difficult. CSU Member Ursula Schleicher agreed that the scale for the number of Members of the EP should be reviewed in 2004, and that a Parliament of 700 Members, "is really a maximum" (on the other hand, Spanish Socialist Carlos Carnero Gonzalez said that a Parliament of 740 Members, for instance, would not be any harder to manage than a body of 700 Members), and called for drafting of a catalogue of its powers.
Certain criticisms, notably concerning the composition of the European Commission, came from Greek Socialist Dimitri Tsatsos, who observed that, within the IGC Preparatory Group (where he represents the EP, with Elmar Brok), several Members had suggested that this issue be dropped until it is clear what is happening with weighting of votes in the Council. Everything is linked, noted Mr Tsatsos, who on the other hand warmly welcomed the rapporteurs' proposals on the European parties. These proposals gave rise to an angry reaction by Jens Peter Bonde, Danish Member of the Europe of Democracies and Diversities Group, who claimed that they go against the European Convention on Human Rights, because they would ban certain political parties on the basis of their ideas. Mr Bonde also voiced opposition to the idea of establishing European lists for the EP elections, saying this would considerably reduce the influence of the small States. The harshest criticisms were expressed by Socialist Jacques Poos (Luxembourg), who criticised Jo Leinen for having "gone a bit too far" with his proposals on the number of Members of the European Parliament: with 10% of seats reserved for European lists, he said, Luxembourg would not have four MEPs, but only three, which would run counter to Treaty provisions establishing that the number of Members must reflect the principal political tendencies. Mr Poos also stated that in the future there would have to be one Commissioner per State, and that this is very important for the new Member States: they must be assured of having a Commissioner for at least 20 years, so as to take part in the Union's "internal cooking", that takes place at the Commission, he declared. "Let us leave aside, for now, what divides us", recommended the former Luxembourg Foreign Minister, noting that, in any case, at the IGC, negotiations would only really get under way towards the end of the year.
Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff, rapporteur (with Mr Voggenhuber) on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, stressed the necessity of the Charter being incorporated into the Treaty and relaunched his idea of a clause enabling a Member State, under certain conditions, to negotiate its secession from the EU, and the idea of a "sunset clause" under which certain provisions that have sunk into oblivion would fall out of the body of European legislation. Mr Duff also regretted the lack of more advanced proposals on the Council: is this because the rapporteurs are so "frightened of the creature", he asked. Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber said he feared that too much emphasis was being placed on efficiency and not enough on democracy, and said the division of the Treaty into two parts "has nothing to do with a process of constitutionalisation". Further, he said it was "arrogant" of the Council to try to secure dual legitimacy, i.e. of States and population: is not the European Parliament already the incarnation of popular legitimacy, asked Mr Voggenhuber.