Strasbourg, 03/10/2000 (Agence Europe) - The debate held by the European Parliament on Tuesday in anticipation of the European Council of Biarritz provided the occasion for the French Presidency to confirm that it would prefer to have a "failure" in Nice rather than agree to a bad agreement on EU institutional reform, and also to sketch out future perspectives based on the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The president of the European Commission believes this debate was an opportunity to reaffirm the strength of the Community method faced with the dangers of extending the intergovernmental method.
Romano Prodi began his speech by recalling that democracy today really seems to be what Serbia wants. He said it must be helped to "turn the page" and reclaim its rightful place in Europe. Mr Prodi deplored the fact that, in the Middle East, where old wounds have been reopened, the opposite is happening. He gave his assurance that the European Commission will be alongside the Council and the Parliament so that the EU may develop strong political action for peace in the region. In his speech (which received warm and strong applause, if not more than his very first speeches before the Parliament), Mr Prodi above all warned against the drift from what is now "Community" towards what is "intergovernmental", and against the increasing "fragmentation" of the decision process in the EU. Thus, Romano Prodi insisted on the role of the European Commission, while also stressing the role to be played by the Parliament, the Council and the Court of Justice. "A strong Council strengthens the action of the Commission and this is equally true of Parliament", affirmed Mr Prodi, who expressed particular concern regarding the "worrying tendency" to favour methods "based primarily on direct cooperation between governments". The extension of this method "could deceive people by constantly creating new bodies which are exempt from any form of democratic scrutiny", and that would be "a real government of bureaucrats". Romano Prodi stressed that the democratic nature of the European process can only be based on dual legitimation, that of the peoples and that of the States. "Enhancing the intergovernmental model at the expense not only of the Commission but also, ultimately, of the Council would therefore undermine the democratic nature of the whole European structure", he continued, saying it is necessary to come out of this "paradoxical situation" in which justice ministers "on such sensitive issues as penal law and police cooperation escape the scrutiny of Parliament and the Court of Justice". The Commission president spoke of the case of Austria. The feeling (that he shares) of having to oppose this drift into racism and authoritarianism has "ended up by creating an artificial distinction between the bilateral action of the Member States and action by the Union as a whole". "Democracy was made to look like something for individual Member States alone" whereas "democracy cannot be a matter for subsidiarity" and should "thrive at every level". At the same time, Mr Prodi acknowledged that it is necessary to have an "open debate about what should and should not be done at European level and at national level". He declared: "I therefore agree that the time has come to open the debate on the distribution of powers between the Union and the Member States".
Another danger noted by Romano Prodi is the "fragmentation of the decision-making processes". Mr Prodi cited the example of the creation of High Representatives. While assuring that Javier Solana would have the "wholehearted support of the Commission", he felt that the "present organisational model is not sustainable in the long term". This model, "confuses the roles of the Council and the Commission in a way that could ultimately jeopardise both struts of the institutional system and exclude Parliament from any effective power". The current situation must therefore be considered as a "transitional phase, useful for launching European action in a new area, but destined to be reabsorbed into the conventional institutional structure, as happened in similar cases such as Schengen". Mr Prodi went on to say he firmly believes that the "function of High Representative should be integrated into the Commission with a special status tailored to the needs of security and defence". In his view, it will be necessary to "draw the same conclusions when considering the solutions to be adopted for other sectors, such as economic policy and the euro". The current management of economic policy projects an image of Europe as indecisive and muddled", admitted Mr Prodi, for whom seeking "such an essential point of reference for any monetary policy must not lead to the creation of another High Representative, this time for economic policy". He believes the "simple, natural, effective solution is there, under our very noses: the Commission, acting on a mandate from the Council, should be the voice of the Union's economic policy. If fact you only have to read the Treaty to understand that, while the Central Bank is the pivot of monetary policy, the body responsible for the overall assessment of the European Union's economic policy can only be the Commission. The Commission is thus the obvious interlocutor for the Central Bank". Mr Prodi cited the risk of fragmentation as a second example: - the desire expressed by some Member States at the IGC to "amend the Treaty to facilitate the creation of agencies on which the Council can then confer executive powers". This could create "conflicting centres of power". Agencies may be needed but "this must be done by maintaining the logic of the Community system". These agencies must therefore "operate under the authority of the Commission - which is answerable to you [Parliament]". "You cannot on the one hand deplore the lack of effective and united European action and on the other be content with the weakness of the instruments available to the Community for carrying out such action", exclaimed Mr Prodi, who believes the recent petrol crisis is a "perfect illustration" of this, since it showed not only the need for a "unified response" but also "our inability to deliver one".
Moscovici confirms Presidency prefers failure in Nice rather than bad institutional
reform and takes stock of work of IGC
In his speech on behalf of the Council Presidency, the French European Affairs Minister, Pierre Moscovici, recalled that the Presidency, like the Commission, had stressed early September in Evian that there was a "real risk of failure in Nice" and that France "preferred failure to an unsatisfactory agreement". He took stock of the work of the IGC on reform: a) the Commission: most Member States are "reticent about having a ceiling to the number of Commissioners and about real internal restructuring of the College, while we all agree as to the need to have a strong and effective Commission". It will be necessary to "be able to exceed certain contradictions", said Mr Moscovici, for whom it is "impossible" to continue "with the current system without reforming it" in a Union of twenty, twenty-five or thirty Member States; - b) vote reweighting within Council: a large number of Member States believe this solution has an advantage over that of dual majority, said Mr Moscovici, who, however, believes that, on this issue which is linked to the former, "there will only be substantial progress later in the day"; - c) qualified majority: work so far is "beginning to bear fruit", and the list of articles likely to be voted by qualified majority is beginning to be quite substantial. Mr Moscovici stressed that the Commission has made a "very constructive" proposal and believes that "as a whole, the results will be up to expectations"; - d) enhanced cooperation: the most reticent Member States should be convinced that this is "not a means of going towards a hard and closed core nor an alternative to progress for qualified majority". Enhanced cooperation is "a good tool that answers the realistic statement of fact that, in the enlarged Europe, all Member States will not be able or will not want to move forward at the same speed".
Finally, the Council president noted that the Presidency will examine, with Member States, the possibility of "completing Article 7 of the Treaty" (violation of the EU basic values) as "a mechanism for prevention, vigilance and warning" will be required.
Regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Mr Moscovici felt this is a "dual success". First of all this is due to the procedure adopted - that of a Convention whose "diversity and the quality of the members" have formed a "factor of wealth", and which has worked in "full transparency and in perfect interactivity with the citizens". The Council president is convinced that this experience "clearly indicates to us one of the roads that Europe could now follow, in order to be more transparent and to heed its citizens more". Secondly, because of the result, which is "a coherent text". It is "mainly by the strength of its content that the Charter will mark a date", said Mr Moscovici, as it represents the "greatest collective move forward for affirming rights since the beginning of European construction". Why not crown such a success by integrating the Charter into the Treaty? To this question, mainly raised by the chairman of the EP's Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Giorgio Napolitano, Mr Moscovici replied by recalling that, according to the conclusions of the Cologne Summit, the European Council must "give its political agreement on the draft Charter", which it will do informally at Biarritz, and "leave it up to the other institutions, your Parliament, but also - why not - certain national parliaments, the time to give its views on the substance and content of this document". The question of integrating the Charter into the Treaty could not therefore be examined until after it has been proclaimed in Nice. Mr Moscovici confirmed that a "very large majority of member States seems to remain opposed to this integration". He asks: "Should one risk rejection of this text in Biarritz, or should one have confidence in the strength of this Charter, which, I am sure, will impose itself, not only as referential of the values of the Union but also as a source of inspiration for the Court of Justice in Luxembourg? We must let things take their course". Mr Moscovici believes the reflection on the future of the Charter joins that on the future of Europe, including on the adoption of a European constitution. He said he was ready to imagine that, after having reached an agreement on the content of such a Constitution, the Charter would find its place in a "constitutional treaty" in the form of a preamble. In his view, however, "there is still a great deal to be done before committing oneself to this new stage", and it would be "premature to want to set a timetable from today on".
Mr. Napolitano recognised the validity of the "argument for timetables" and a "lack of maturity" in the debate on the Charter put forward by Mr. Moscovici, but said that the problem of integrating the Charter in the Treaty could not however be evaded. It must be discussed at the IGC, and at Nice "the path that needs going down must be traced in a concrete manner".
Mr. Moscovici said he hoped that at Biarritz the package would be conserved without the text adopted being touched. At the same time, to Ms. Beres who was suggesting establishing a link between the Charter and Article 7 of the Treaty, the Council President replied that he rather saw a reference, in the Charter to Article 6 (which affirms the EU's fundamental values, whereas Article 7 relates to possible sanctions in case of violation).
Differences between Mosocvici and Prodi
Mr. Moscovici also responded to Mr. Prodi's address (which, he said, "will remain an important address"), by saying that he broadly agreed with him, but stipulating: - a) "attention must be paid all things being given a sole Community dimension, as the share of competencies is also a characteristic of European construction"; b) there are areas where national sovereignty cannot be placed back into question, like the foreign and security policy. For that reason, Moscovici considers that, "one day maybe", the role of the High Representative for Cfsp may be transferred to the Commission, but that, for now, it was rather a question of "consolidating" this role; - c) regarding the euro, "the rudder needs holding fast by both the Council and Commission", and, here too, they had to avoid "veering the boat towards all things being given a sole Community dimension".
Prodi replied that he had not asked for everything to be given "a sole Community dimension", but had simply recalled the situation as it stood: I have an "extremely strong" feeling for subsidiarity, he said. As for Cfsp, he underpinned the negative consequences that the "fragmentation" of the decision-making process had had for EU action in the Balkans, adding: "I would never allow it to be repeated that the Commission has no democratic legitimacy. We were too patient…". He ended on a lighter note, observing that at the Olympic Games of Sydney, the Fifteen had won 239 medals, and the United States 99. Even taking the euro zone, Europe would have had the best result.
Oil crisis and energy problem in general to be discussed by Heads of State or Government
in Biarritz, Moscovici confirms
The President of the Council also announced, in his address, that the Summit of Biarritz would raise the issue of theoil crisis and the energy problem as a whole, on the basis of the paper the European commission proposes adopting on Wednesday (which will deal, notably, with the "Prodi Project" of long-term partnership with Russia, see yesterday's EUROPE, p.8).
Parliament calls for the Biarritz Summit instruct the IGC to study ways of
integrating Charter in the Treaty
By adopting a resolution tabled by the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Giorigio Napolitano (Democratici di Sinistra), with a compromise amendment by the PES and EPP/ED groups, the European Parliament urged the European Council, when meeting in Biarritz, to instruct the Intergovernmental Conference to examine ways of integrating the Charter in the Treaty, in view of a decision at the European Council of Nice. As mentioned above, the aim of this resolution is to secure a more concrete decision than a simple proclamation in the Charter. Should the Charter's text not be formally integrated in the preamble to the Treaty, or in the from of a protocol, this wording at least opens the way for reference to be made to the charter in the text of Article 6 of the Treaty. Parliament, moreover, adopted the amendment tabled by Ms. Beres stressing that the "Convention remains the only competent body to draw up the charter up to its proclamation".