Strasbourg, 13/12/2000 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament, after its Tuesday debate over the Nice Treaty stemming from the European Council, will vote this Thursday a joint resolution of the EPP/ED, Socialist, Liberal and Green/ALE political groups in which it expressed a first rather critical political judgement of the reforms approved in Nice, while admitting the existence of certain progress, notably concerning the European Commission and Article 7 (on violations of principals that form the basis of the EU). The Parliament will call on the Constitutional Committee to carry out a detailed assessment of the new Treaty and it will confirm in its resolution that the Intergovernmental Conference method is outdated: in the work on the "post Nice", it will require resorting to another method, that of the Convention, used to draft the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The Constitutional Committee gathered on Tuesday in Strasbourg after the debate in plenary, and its President Giorgio Napolitano told journalists that its first analysis had been "very sever and very concerning". Also adding: "Michel Barnier, who was in Nice, took part in our meeting and answered our questions, and he was sincere, critical, but not destructive". Mr Napolitano added that the members of the parliamentary Committee had also heard the two representatives of the EP to the IGC - Elmar Brok and Dimitri Tsatsos - and that the first had been "strongly critical and rather emotional". On 8 January, I will present to the Constitutional Committee a working document, announced Mr Napolitano, adding that it would particularly concern deciding if the Parliament must draft a single report covering the Nice Treaty and "post Nice", or if it should first vote on the revised Treaty. In the second case, "we would move faster; but he added: I think that we should move faster with regards to "post Nice". Mr Napolitano personally expects, that the vote on the Treaty could take place during the session to be held from the 12 to 15 March.
In our appreciation, we must be "very concrete" over the deficiencies of the Treaty notably concerning the decision-making process, asserted the former President of the Italian Parliament. Over the assertions by those who say that either way the EP must not ratify the new Treaty, he added: "The Parliament must give its assessment in order for the national parliaments to take it into account". According to him, an "open crisis" has been avoided in extremis in Nice, but on can talk of a "latent crisis", which risks exploding "if there are complications with the first accessions".
Most MEPs criticise Nice Treaty, but do not call for it to be rejected
The statements from the spokespersons of the political groups over the results obtained in Nice (see yesterday's EUROPE, pages 5, 6 &7) had set the tone and this tone dominated the debate that followed. With Dimitri Tsatsos, I had the mission of representing the Parliament at the IGC, now I want to say "mission failed", bitterly asserted the German Christian Democrat Elmar Brok, when notably deploring that the decisions over the number of seats in the Parliament of an EU with 27 had been taken without consulting the Parliament itself. For him, the "post Nice" must be prepared by a Convention were the Parliament really has a word to say (for the position of Elmar Brok, also see EUROPE of 9 December, page 3). This analysis was shared by Mr Tsatsos, who nevertheless warned before voting no to Nice in January, think hard, said the Greek Socialist. The President of the Constitutional Committee, Giorgio Napolitano (DS, Italy) said he was convinced that the "problems" which have not been resolved in a satisfactory manner in Nice (he prefers this term to that of "leftovers") will surely be faced once more later on, insists on another approach to find the answers to these problems: not, as in Nice, in the defence of national interests, but in the framework of a true debate over the future of the EU. An open crisis was avoided, but there is a latent crisis, noted Mr Napolitano: to tackle this we must not "run", but sure we must not take a step forward and then one backwards.
A step backwards was made for at least one point, that of the weighting of votes, according to the British Labour member Richard Corbett, who, when trying to make an assessment between the "good, the bad and the ugly", nevertheless identified a series of decisions that, while not being completely satisfactory, are better than the status quo (enhanced cooperation, extension - despite all - of majority voting) and certain positive decision (new version of Article 7, Article on the European political parties, Parliament's right to appeal before the Court of Justice). I think that I will recommend the ratification, when calling for progress down the path of reform, said Mr Corbett. The Austria Social Democrat Johannes Swoboda recognises that the people often do not go as far as the European Parliament in their calls for reforms: but, with a result closer to our hopes, our strength for persuasion has been greater, he exclaimed. Before ruling in a final manner, Mr Swoboda would like to know what would be the role of the Parliament in the "post Nice": we want to prove to the Heads of Government that we will be able to organise ourselves better than them". There will be no Nice leftovers, but what a sad assessment, noted, in turn, the French Socialist Pervenche Beres (while noting that the good results gained elsewhere by the French Presidency): Nice allows for enlargement, but without a plan or soul. What lacks in the vision is also denounced by the German Social Democrat Klaus Hansch, former EP President: this agreement is "narrow" and opens the way for more intergovernmental and more bureaucracy. The basic problem is that the Council, instead of dealing with Europe, concentrated on issues of power, felt the Portuguese Socialist Antonio-Jose Seguro, and his opinion is shared by Monica Franssoni, the Italian member of the Greens group, who sees in Blair and Aznar the true winners in the IGC (for which she hopes that it will be the last). The "post Nice" process allows for some hopes, but 2004 is too far: Monica Frassoni hopes that, by next June, a democratic process is launched that has as aim, a Constitution for Europe.
In Nice it was not a question of European plan, it was solely a question of "interests", it is this that is "despairing" deplored Francois Bayrou, UDF: according to him nobody tried to ask if it was Europe that left as the winner of the talks, and the inexplicable Byzantine decision for the citizens have been taken on decision-making mechanisms. The results are exasperating, both for the Commission (separated from the "confessionals"), for the Parliament (excluded from codecision over new Chapters), for the citizens (excluded from the discussion and condemned not to understand). The solution is, according to Bayrou: "continue the European dream, rebuild the project". If everybody only thinks of their national political problems we will not succeed, warned the Finn Ilkka Souminen, he too a member of the EPP/DE group. With this Council, we have given a strange example to the candidate countries, felt Mr Souminen. The British Conservative Edward MacMillan, condemned as for him the weighting of votes that is illogical (we work in one way in the Council, in another in the Parliament) and questioned that role of the Parliament in the framework of enhanced cooperation. Christopher Beazley, also a British Conservative, noted that Tony Blair returned from the United Kingdom a hero: but what did he get in reality? For Mr Beazley that only truly positive signal from this Council is that fact that the European Commission has rediscovered its determination.
Concerns expressed by MEPs from Nordic countries, notably Ole Krarup, Dane, member of the Europe of Democracy and Diversities group, "who fears greater centralisation and the domination of the large countries, as does Jonas Sjostedt (Swedish member of the United Left/Nordic Left group) and the Swedish Liberal Cecilia Malmstrom, who calls for, in the next IGC, the new member countries to have the same rights as the present members of the EU.
The Nice Treaty is not exactly what we would have wanted, but it is "the best Treaty possible", concluded Pierre Moscovici when answering the MEPs on behalf of the Council. In his opinion, the results in the weighting of votes are balanced: this difficult operation was not done on the backs of the small. We will see how the Parliament can be involved in the "post Nice", but it is difficult to imagine that the Council can meet under the control of the Parliament, said Mr Moscovici. The Parliament criticises the European Council for the results of Nice, but the MEPs must then also address themselves to their governments and the people who elected them, he added. Nobody can claim to be the only depository of European ideals, concluded Mr Moscovici , when asserting his deep belief in the Community method.
RPR members strongly criticise statements by President of their group
The RPR MEPs - Margie Sudre, Hugues Martin, Marie-Therese Hermange, Joseph Dauil and Brice Hortefeux - have, after the debate on Tuesday, released a press release in which they assert that the statements by Hans-Gert Pottering, President of the EPP/ED group (within which they sit) "stupefied" them. While the President of the French Republic "answered very clearly over the problem of the allocation of votes to Poland, Mr Pottering returns to this explanation by casting doubt in an unacceptable manner over the words of the Head of State", say the European members of the party lead by Jacques Chirac, who, furthermore, "rise up with force" against the assertion, which they consider "simply inflammatory", according to which the difficulties of the Nice Summit "showed the physical and physiological limits of this procedure and of the Heads of State and Government". According to them, "if a certain number of criticisms can be legitimately expressed after the summit", we cannot "support the misdirected attacks made by Mr Pottering".