Brussels, 25/05/2000 (Agence Europe) - The session at ministerial level of the Intergovernmental Conference on 22 May enabled our President, Nicole Fontaine, to defend "with good results" the European Parliament's position on institutional reform, Greek Socialist Dimitris Tsatsos, one of Parliament's representatives in the IGC (along with CDU member Elmar Brok: see below), told the EP's Committee on Institutional Affairs, Wednesday afternoon. President Prodi, he said, "on the whole" welcomed Parliament's contribution to the debate, and the French representative, Mr. Moscovici, provided an initial positive reaction to the proposal of electing a party of Euro-MPs on a single European list, even though he did say that there were "many modalities" to discuss. Monday's ministerial meeting did not discuss the issue, but Mr. Tstasos made a point of turning to enhanced cooperation, and, in this context, commented on the speech by Joschka Fischer (see below). Noting that "two or three Member states" are in favour of retaining the "veto" on triggering enhanced cooperation, whereas most of them wanted to abolish this possible "deadlock", the MEP said he was "certain" that, the next time the issue was raised, the Portuguese Presidency would propose an "interim solution", suggesting a model "involving the European Commission". Through its Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen Resolution, Parliament had asked for such Commission "involvement", as well as the EP's agreement, Tsatsos recalled, noting that Parliamentary consultation would in some ways, for Member states, replace the "guarantee" that the possibility of a veto to the launch of enhanced cooperation could represent. The idea that the proposal for triggering enhanced cooperation should come from the Commission seems to me "a reasonable idea", as one would have the certainty that this proposal would not "divide the Union", exclaimed the Luxembourg Socialist Jacques Poos, who, as Foreign Minister of his country had been one of the negotiators of the Amsterdam Treaty.
Mr Tsatsos, moreover, noted that, as far as vote weighting in Council is concerned, the solution of a double majority (of States and of population) was practically rejected by the Presidency, as only "two or three" countries are in favour of this. Regarding the composition of the European Commission, he felt that the solution of "one Commissioner per Member State" seems practically accepted and that it does not make much sense to continue fighting for a more reduced Commission. In his view, these two problems should - which has not so far been done - be discussed together with that of the distribution of seats at the European Parliament, as a single policy package. If one continues to discuss them separately, a solution will never be found. By seriously tackling these questions together, it means that discussions are on "an overall institutional order for the Union" and that the fundamental question of "State representation compared to national institutions" would be raised, noted Austrian Green member Hannes Voggenhuber, who felt that this "flight in the face of the constitutional debate" is the "Achilles' heel" of the IGC. Gathering the foreign ministers or the heads of State or government in a "conclave" so that they settle these issues together would mean "white smoke" after just a few hours or after a "prolonged session", said Mr Poos (the exercise resembles a "Vatican Concile" rather than a meeting for electing the pope, joked the chairman of the constitutional committee, PDS member Giorgio Napolitano). Several MEPs regretted the speed of progress made by the IGC. One such MEP was British Conservative Christopher Beazley, who asked whether the future French Presidency is in fact really trying, by provoking the "frustration" of the Portuguese Presidency, to "delay" any agreement, in order to come to a negotiation conclusion at the end of the year and not before. Another British Conservative, the Earl of Stockton, felt for his part that it would be necessary to limit negotiations to the core elements.
Strong criticism by some MEPs during speech by Joschka Fischer, while others consider
advantage should be taken
The speech by Joschka Fischer at the Humboldt Universitöt was widely commented on by MEPs. What Fischer proposes is "another Europe" and has nothing to do with the IGC, said Mr Tsatsos, without wishing, he said, to give an evaluation of merit. "Joschka will have to forgive me", but what he calls federation is for me just confederation, and the fact of making the European Council the "European government" has nothing to do with federalism, exclaimed Mr Voggenhuber, who is a Green like Mr Fischer. On the other hand, Italian Green member Monica Frassoni said that the speech in Berlin "could not be more anti-federalist". She said that, politically, the European Parliament must exploit everything that is positive: the moment chosen was the right moment so that this discussion "will not be held God knows when". It is "the kind of speech" that the Parliament must make. Mr Poos, on the other hand, reproached Mr Fischer for "having interfered in the negotiation process" for having "no doubt made it more difficult". These comments caused a reaction from Mr Napolitano who exclaimed: "The Conference will not fail because of Minister Fischer!". Mr Fischer, he said, has in no way claimed that the IGC is examining long term objectives and European construction, and we, as a Parliament, must "draw strength" from a series of interventions such as those by Messrs Delors, Schmidt, Giscard d'Estaing or his own, in order to continue to support our theses on the extension of the IGC agenda, as requested in our resolution of 13 April which, above all, insisted on facilitating strengthened cooperations.
Mr Brok expresses concern for Presidency proposal on hierarchy of standards
Completing the report by Mr Tsatsos on the last meetings of the IGC, elected CDU member Elmar Brok noted, above all, that there were "not many good new things" to be pointed out concerning the key question of extension of qualified majority. He went on to add that it will be necessary to "pay great attention" to the possible effects of a new Presidency proposal on the hierarchy of norms which, in his view, would entail "constant disputes" between the institutions on the question of knowing who decides what is "legislative" and what is "administrative", and who would represent, in some respects, the step back needed vis-à-vis the current co-decision situation.
Exchange with British Permanent Representative causes heated debate on Charter of Fundamental
Rights and the role of the United Kingdom in Europe
The British Permanent Representative, Sir Stephen Wall, recalled his country's position on Thursday at the Constitutional Committee, with details given in the White Paper on the IGC. He mainly pointed out that London: - agrees that more can be done with regard to qualified majority; is among them who feeling there should be a "cap" on the number of Commission members; - and for a speeding up of the work by the Court of Justice; - accept that there is an increase in the cases of codecision, by proceeding with a case by case assessment. The priority, is to be ready for an enlargement, underlined Sir Stephen, who, in answering in particular the Portuguese Socialist Antonio José Seguro, felt that the present IGC agenda is "not minimalist", and that they must not overload, though except to add strengthened co-operations. On this issue, he nevertheless feels that the Amsterdam Treaty was "rightly cautious" and that in this area a form of "emergency break" remains necessary, so as to avoid that a group of countries (including certain new Member States, he added) "go off on their own" at the risk of attacking their EU's "integrity."
Questioned on the speech by Joschka Fischer that the Finnish Liberal Paavo Vayrynen judged "realistic" (the Liberal group is rather divided on this issue, noted Mr. Vayrynen: see below), while the British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff felt that he risked making the strengthened co-operations emerge as the "pre-eminent question" of this IGC, with the risk that the United Kingdom be "relegated among the second class Member States" - Sir Stephen Wall once more warned against the risk of attacking the "inclusive" character of the Union and stated: we must not fool ourselves when Mr. Fischer tells us that a future centre of gravity will be opened, as if you are in a Mercedes and in another Member State a Skoda, the only chance for catching up is for the Mercedes to slow down… and, while recognising that Mr. Fischer made a more long-term speech, Sir Stephen commented: if in the long-term the "core" should become some "sort of a Federation with its own institutions" I hardly see how it "could live within the EU." That is why "we are reluctant to go down the road", he confirmed.
Other MEPs, in particular the Green Monica Frassoni and Hannes Voggenhuber asked themselves why the United Kingdom is so reticent over the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Sir Stephen answered: for us, this exercise must try to "make the existing rights comprehensible" for those who do not have the Treaty as "bedside reading", to clarify where they are enacted (in the EU Treaty or the European Human Rights Convention) without creating new rights. It is clear that we will discuss this in Feira, in Biarritz (at the special summit on the 13 and 14 October: Ed.) and "beyond", noted the British permanent representative. Mr. Voggenhuber was surprised by this answer by announcing: you speak of making more readable the existing rights, but what rights are these? Where are they controlled? Can we claim, for example, that the Member State courts ensure the control of Schengen? More generally, Mr. Voggenhuber spoke of, with regard to the attitude towards Europe of London, of a certain amount of "bitterness", but also of his great admiration for the "Machiavellian intelligence" with which the United Kingdom has repeatedly passed certain steps of European integration "leaving the others to take the initial risk" as with EMU, he noted. Sir Stephen replied by reminding, in particular, of the contribution made by his country to the setting up of the single market (that, he underlined, was not created by the six founding countries) and, more recently, the development of European Security and Defence Policy. While at the eight or ninth place in terms of prosperity, we continue to be one of the main contributors to the EU budget, he also asserted. Jacques Poos (Socialist, Luxembourg) reacted by quoting an article by Giuliano Amato publish in "Le Monde" of the 25 May under the heading "A strong heart for Europe" and (already published in "La Republica"), in which the Italian Prime Minister asserts that without the United Kingdom, a possible "centre of gravity" would be more compact, but that it would be politically, economically and militarily weaker, and more culturally poor. In the previous IGC, to which I participated London often made very useful proposals that enabled us to reach compromises "accepted by others," added Mr. Poos.
I most certainly do not underestimate the British contribution to the development of new joint policies such as defence policy, but as a constitutional committee we worry about giving this policy a "proper constitutional basis", replied Giorgio Napolitano. As for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, he underlined that this was not a plot by the Parliament against the Commission," but an initiative launched by the Heads of State and Government at the Cologne Summit, in June 1999. We speak of "proclamation" of this Charter, but "proclaiming, is not enough", he stated. Also, in conclusion, he underlined that parliament does not want to slow the enlargement, but the an unsatisfactory IGC risks provoking tensions in the whole enlargement process on which, he reminded, the European Parliament must give its assent.