Brussels, 12/09/2000 (Agence Europe) - The representatives of the European Parliament at the IGC, German Christian Democrat Elmar Brok and Greek Socialist Dimitris Tsatsos, took stock, on Tuesday, before the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs chaired by Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra), of the first two working meetings of the Preparatory Group of the Intergovernmental Conference chaired by French Permanent Representative Pierre Vimont (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.3).
On the subject of the exchange of views that the Vimont Group held on 11 September on the subject of Article 7 of the EU Treaty (violations of EU values), Elmar Brok noted that, after the presentation of the report by the Three Wisemen on the political situation in Austria, some Member States had taken part in this debate with less intensity than before. Nonetheless, in his view, "we shall have a surveillance mechanism" to prevent such violation. The discussion unfolded on the basis of well known proposals made at the IGC by Belgium and Austria. According to Mr Brok, "the Belgian proposal is the best" because it provides for the decision to be taken by majority, but the Austrian proposal is best in that it provides for Parliament's agreement. The European Parliament, states Mr Brok, should, in this field, also have a right of proposal. Dimitris Tsatsos, for his part, evoked the discussion at the Vimont Group on the subject of the Court of Justice. He felt that the Parliament had obtained "some success" as a majority of States would recognise that the Parliament should have the right to file a complaint, not only when it is to defend its own powers.
Regarding the exchange of views on the European Commission, held during lunch, Mr Brok pointed out that the basic positions remain the same: a minority of States are in favour, within an enlarged EU, of a Commission with fewer members than the number of EU Member States, while a majority insists on one Commissioner per Member State. Mr Brok recalled that the European Parliament, in the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen Report, left both options open. "We are, moreover, in favour of strengthening the powers of the president, mainly concerning portfolios to be attributed to Commissioners and the possibility of withdrawing them", he remarked. Mr Sacrédeus (EPP, Swedish) was indignant: "I do not understand why the Commission President should have the right to chose which Swedish or French national should have a seat at the Commission, and what that person should do".
On Tuesday morning, the constitutional committee also heard the personal representatives of Greece and Sweden at the Vimont Group, both of whom confirmed that, for their country, it is essential that each Member State should keep the right to designate a European Commissioner for reasons of legitimacy (we shall come back to their remarks in greater detail later). The Greek representative, Professor Panayotis Ioakimidis, stressed before the MEPs the central role that, according to Greece, the European Commission should keep. He pointed out that Greece is open to suggestion regarding the strengthening of the role of the Commission president and the internal organisation restructuring of the College, in order, for example, to designate from four to six vice-presidents who would be above all charged with a task of coordination. Swedish representative Gunnar Lund expressed views along the same lines, and concern about the fact that some Member States seem to have forgotten the link made in Amsterdam between keeping one Commissioner per member State and re-negotiation of vote weighting in Council. "I would be worried to see a European Commission without a German, French or British Commissioner", he joked (adding: and without a Swedish Commissioner …). "I refuse the reasoning whereby, in order to have a strong Commission, one should have a smaller Commission", said Ambassador Lund, also pressing for a strong and independent European Commission.
Elmar Brok also spoke of the work of the Vimont Group on 4 September, which largely covered extension of qualified majority. He felt that, for the first time, there was an impression of "movement". The Presidency has presented a list of subjects to us on which we could go from unanimity to qualified majority, and some member States which had not stated their position before were more specific, he noted, thanks, above all, to the method applied by the Presidency, who questioned everyone on this point (which meant we could not "beat about the bush", he remarked). Mr Brok, however, confirms the concern felt by Parliament for initiatives aimed at redefining the notion of legislative act, and for the reticence of certain Member States to establish a link between qualified majority and codecision.