Strasbourg, 12/12/2000 (Agence Europe) - The first overall political judgement given by MEPs during the plenary debate on Tuesday on the results of the European Council of Nice concerning EU institutional reform was rather critical, mainly because of the fact that results did not live up to the ambitions proclaimed for extension of qualified majority and because of the priority given by some governments to the defence of national interests. Negotiation clearly highlighted the shortcomings of the intergovernmental method, and the next Treaty revision should use a different method, many MEPs forcefully stated.
At the Nice Summit there were "no winners and no losers", although "some agreed to do more than others, and tribute should be paid to them", said President Chirac. He felt that, unlike Amsterdam, the participants managed to strike a good balance between "representation and effectiveness". In his view, after this negotiation, albeit at times rather "rough-going", the contract has been fulfilled as "even if all the ambitions of the European Parliament are not included in the revised Treaty, there are no Nice 'leftovers'". The President of the Republic placed emphasis on the following aspects: a) the European Commission remains at the heart of the Union, a strong institution, able to make ambitious proposals, with a president who has "new powers", designated by qualified majority, which is "real progress"; b) there was real progress also in the extension of qualified majority vote, even if such progress does not go as far as the Presidency hoped, which is proof of "great openness, at a national level". Some thirty provisions now require qualified majority and this result should not be underestimated, noted Mr Chirac, who stressed the progress recorded in the justice and home affairs chapters, commercial policy and cohesion; c) the result on the re-weighting of votes in Council is "balanced" and the mechanisms set in place, whether they concern the "demographic verification clause" or the so-called "majority of States" clause (necessary for a decision to be taken) will not affect the EU's ability to take decisions; d) enhanced cooperation, largely facilitated in the first and second pillars, could be "really used". This is one of the "most positive" results of the IGC, said Mr Chirac, who noted that "we thus have the guarantee that Europe may, no matter what happens, go forward at sustained speed"; d) the IGC was translated by "extension of the powers and competences of the European Parliament", which is entrusted with a "very important role" under Article 7 (warning procedure concerning fundamental rights), and the "statute of institutional applicant" provided for in Article 230 of the Treaty. Mr Chirac nonetheless admitted that progress made in extending codecision is less than expected by the EP or by the Presidency.
Regarding "post-Nice", Mr Chirac stressed there will be reflection on the future of Europe, as the European Council decided. The European Parliament will of course be closely involved in such reflection and there should be results in 2004. This process "will under no circumstances be a precondition for enlargement and will therefore not hold it up", said Mr Chirac, who noted that the candidate countries welcomed the results of the "institutional work in Nice". He exclaimed: "Enlargement is well and truly the major affair of Europe! (…) In Nice, we fixed a road map for the next eighteen months. This is the proof that the Union plans to move forward".
President Chirac also rapidly spoke of the other issues tackled by the European Council. In particular, he mentioned; i) the charter of Fundamental Rights. This text is of "great political value" and "we shall now give it great response and rapidly reflect upon its statute"; ii) the Defence Europe. The EU will have troops and command, projection and intelligence means necessary for carrying out complex joint armed forces operations. The Union plans to use this armed wing in full harmony with NATO and, where necessary, with its support". "By gaining strength, Europe is obviously strengthening the Atlantic Alliance also", affirmed Jacques Chirac, who also noted that, in Nice, it was decided to include in the Treaty the creation of a Political and Security Committee which, as a "true kingpin will be delegated the power to make decisions when the management of a crisis so warrants".
Mr Prodi calls on MEPs to support Nice Treaty and welcomes decision of principal
to progressively hold all summit in Brussels
The President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, who was applauded in a very sincere manner at the start, during and at the end of his speech, asserted: "the new millennium offers us an opportunity without precedent" to unite in a great area of peace, stability and development, and "Nice is a step in this direction. A shorter step than we would have wanted and could have achieved. Though the direction is the right one. For this reason, I call on you to support it".
Mr Prodi started by welcoming the "strong initiative" of President Chirac following which the European Council to the "wise decision" to "progressively" transfer all the European summit to Brussels, thus "accentuating the character of the capital of Europe". After the summit already programmed, one summit in two will take place in Brussels, and the decision will apply to all European Councils as soon as the EU has 18 members, noted Mr Prodi, while noting that that fact of discussing the organisation of the summits themselves, "of their burden, their complexity, their itinerant nature" was a "development that - I feel - is not without importance".
As for the results from Nice, Mr Prodi raised: a) the extension of qualified majority voting. There has been progress, but "on the qualitative level, it is another speech". Thus, over cohesion, taxation, social, the progress has hit "the intransigence of certain Member States". Mr Prodi said he was disappointed with "the spirit of closing and incomprehension that emerges from these attitudes" and (while gaining the most noisy applause), he asserted: "those who see Europe as a simple bargaining room where they can draw from when it is necessary and from which they move away from when it is not longer possible to draw or when much has already been gained, commit not only an error of historical analysis, but also a crime against the new generations. They have the right to far more from Europe". Furthermore, Mr Prodi, without underestimating the results over the third pillar, felt that the acceleration of the "great new policy in cross border matters decided in Tampere is brought back into question, and the "Tampere roadmap will start recording delays" due to the maintaining, for the time being, of the unanimity rule (I hope that they delays will not be put down to the Parliament nor the Commission, he underlined); b) enhanced cooperation. The Commission will use "this crucial instrument", on the one hand to enable the countries that want to "further unite their destinies" to achieve "great new objectives", and on the other hand in order to "guarantee everybody against the risk of the fragmentation that could stem from an uncontrolled proliferation of enhanced cooperation"; c) the European Commission. In Nice, they decided "deep and radical changes", and the Commission will only be able to grow to "up to 26 members"; d) the European Parliament. It "noticeably obtained a statue for European political parties", while it is very concerning that the number of these members be mainly used as a "variable to compensate the balances of the Council"; d) weighting of votes in the Council. The result is "disappointing" because it would be more difficult to reach qualified majority, and the blocking will thus be easier, when enlargement requires "exactly the contrary", and this because the process is more complex. There, Mr Prodi paid homage to Guy Verhofstadt, who "fought until the end for a more equitable presence of the candidate States and to make less unreasonable, even if still to high, the ceiling for qualified majority". This confirmed "the major historic role played by Belgium in the European Union" (further applause).
As for "post Nice", Mr Prodi felt that the though process announced must associate government, parliaments and citizens from the present member countries and the candidate countries: this process is extremely necessary because "the experience of Nice shows that the present method for revising the Treaties is no longer suitable".
Finally, among the other themes dealt with by the Summit, Mr Prodi wanted in particular to recall the decision over the statue of European company, noting that it is a legal instrument of evident use "that failed at the time of major restructuring by companies which we have recently witnessed".
Parliament is nearly unanimous that governmental method has reached its limits
It is the first time that the analysis of a European Council by EP political groups converge on this issue. This realisation is encouraging, noted the Green President, the Belgian Paul Lannoye, and most of the political group have drawn similar conclusions from the results of Nice on the institutional chapter, negative conclusions - with nuances, and sometimes opposed motivations. One of the main aims - the improvement of the decision-making ability of the EU - has not been achieved, said Hans-Gert Pottering, German, President of the EPP/DE group, which considered insufficient the results for qualified majority and codecision. He also denounced with vehemence the French proposal (then abandoned) to give Poland less votes in the Council that to Spain; President Chirac replied that it was a simple "technical" error, which had been rectified as quickly as possible, and that France would
never have considered to "decouple" Poland from Spain. This was confirmed, in a press conference, by Mr Moscovici, who said he personally reassured the Polish negotiator over this issue as soon as the mistake had been noticed. Mr Pottering welcomed the intention to involve the European Parliament in the "post Nice" process: in this framework, it will require considering new methods for the revision of Treaties, as the intergovernmental method has reached its limits.
Practically all the parliamentarians vigorously denounced the slippage of this method, including Enrique Baron, Spaniard, President of the Socialist group. There where twelve months of talks, two conclaves, what has this achieved?, wondered Mr Baron, when saying "no" to the closed door talks and when noting the pleasant results of another method, that of the Convention, used for the Charter (after nine months, there was a successful completion). Mr Baron feels that the new weighting (too complicated, on this issue there is also near unanimity) ends up indirectly re-establishing the large States right to veto. I welcome that fact that there is a Treaty, said the Irishman Pat Cox, President of the Liberal group, but the content cannot satisfy us and the atmosphere that reigns in Nice is of concern, as, during the talks on the weighting of votes, the "emphasis was more in blocking things rather than on promoting them". Welcoming the "European fortitude" of Romano Prodi, Mr Cox called for the return to the Community method, which contributed towards creating and delivering the European dream: certain sceptics do not like this and will never like it, but it is the best method for progressing. For Paul Lannoye on behalf of the Greens, Nice is a failure: the democracy and transparency have been sacrificed to the benefit of national interests and the Parliament is largely forgotten. I have read Article 133 on trade policy three times, said Mr Lannoye, and I have not understood a great deal, other than the fact that the Parliament does not have enough say in a crucial field. It is a serious political mistake. But this lack must, according to Mr Lannoye, reflect in a position action, by changing the method and no longer refusing popular debate over the aims of the EU. This debate, Francis Wurtz, Frenchman, President of the United Left group, also wants it: the human tide that converges in Nice, to remind that there may exist alternatives to globalisation, has shown that it is required. In his opinion this Council has been the crucial illustration of the crisis in European identity.
We knew that the French Presidency was desperate for there to be an agreement in Nice, asserted Charles Pasqua, RPF, who spoke on behalf of the Union for a Europe of Nations group, and especially for the French members. Though the criticisms addressed to President Chirac (for whom only Mr Pasqua appreciates the "beautiful physical resistance") are inspired by an opposed analysis to that of other parliamentarians. Mr Pasqua in fact denounced the "pipe dream" of a Europe of twenty seven, the "mad" abdication of sovereignty, which according to him makes France a looser in this Council. The time come, we will consult the French by referendum, said Mr Pasqua. In line with this, Charles de Gaulle, from the National Front, felt that in Nice, Portugal and Belgium have more weight than France and that, if Mr Chirac hopes "to refresh himself in Nice" (allusion to the difficulties over the time when he was mayor of Paris), he is wrong. The French President answered without reacting to the two parliamentarians: I do not truly understand your "subtleties", he said to Mr de Gaulle, and he was surprised that Mr Pasqua spoke at the same time of the abdication of sovereignty and of "empty decisions, that the State could apply or not". In that case, it should not concern you, felt Mr Chirac. The Frenchman Jean Saint-Josse for the Europe of Democracy and Diversities group, announced that his group would oppose with all its strength this Treaty. Austria can live with this agreement, asserted on the other hand Gerhard Hager, from the FPÖ, while noting that for some citizens the European building process is moving too fast, and certain national interest cannot be ignored.
Jacques Chirac did not let himself be distracted by this barrage of criticism. Always smiling, he first said that it is the vocation, the function of the European Parliament to be ambitious, to have a vision, but that in the reality of things, what the people are prepared to accept. Mr Chirac recalled that Mr Prodi had said that they must temper the ambitions with realism: "it is wisdom", noted the French President, who however recognised that, if it is necessary to decide, it is necessary to "convince". Over specific points, Mr Chirac, for whom the absence of an agreement would have been "the worst of situations", indicated: i) the failing of the intergovernmental method. Mr Chirac recognises, by admitting the good results of the "Convention" (over which I was sceptical to start with, he recalled): yes, without a doubt a reform of the method must be found; ii) the debate with civil society is necessary, to give "a little oxygen" to our thought process. As for globalisation, it is inevitable, but it must be mastered and made humane.
We will return to the end of the debate, which continued during the afternoon. The Parliament will vote on a resolution on the Nice summit on Thursday, and the three largest groups (EPP/DE, Socialist and Liberal) have called for the drafting of a detailed report to be handed to the constitutional committee in order for the Parliament to rule on all the aspects of the reform.