Brussels, 18/04/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament is to give its stance during its May sitting in Strasbourg (from 14 to 17 May) on the report by Inigo Mendez de Vigo (Partido Popular, Spain) and Antonio José Seguro (Portuguese Socialist) on the Treaty of Nice and the future of the European Union (see EUROPE of 13 April, page 6, for the position taken by European members of the CDU/SCU). The Committee on Constitutional Affairs chaired by Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra, Italy) will examine the amendments to the draft resolution during the afternoon of 25 April.
In the explanatory statement of their report, Mr Mendez de Vigo and Mr Seguro consider above all that Nice meant exhaustion of the intergovernmental formula for treaty reform as a method for making the Union move forward. They wonder whether the Nice Declaration on the future of Europe marks an end to the kind of schizophrenia that has been visible since Maastricht whereby the strategic debate continues by roads other than by successive reform of the treaties. The rapporteurs note that the declaration has the merit of recognising for the first time that the parliamentary dimension - both European and national - must be present in all reflection on the future of the Union. They stress that the participation of national parliaments in European construction raises questions that will require an indepth debate (Mr Napolitano is preparing a report on this subject). Regarding another theme evoked during the Nice Declaration, the breakdown of powers, Mr Mendez de Vigo and Mr Seguro (who recall that Alain Lamassoure, French member of the EPP Group, will be drafting a report on this issue) say that, if the exercise results in the establishment of a catalogue of competences, we shall find ourselves before a radical break of some of the elements away from the Community method, replacing the gradual allocation of powers to the Union by the definitive fixing - like a photo - of the different fields of competence. As far as the method is concerned, the two rapporteurs stress the "many advantages" of the Convention model, and specify that: - a four-party composition is needed - national parliaments, European Parliament, Commission and government representatives - which should not pose too many problems. Furthermore, they believe one should consider the dimension of the Convention and the possibility of increasing the number of parliamentarians (compared to the Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights), in order to ensure the greatest possible political pluralism; - as the Convention cannot have a decision-making role, it could either point out alternatives on key themes or elaborate a "consensual project" (but in either case, the Laeken Summit should give it a "clear mandate"). Finally, according to the two MEPs, the next IGC should be convened during the second half of 2003 so that the electoral process with a view to election of the European Parliament in June 2004 is transformed into an "opportunity for making citizens rally and adhere to the European project".
Regarding the Nice Treaty, the judgement of the two rapporteurs is mitigated, but not entirely negative. Thus, they consider that regarding: - weight voting in Council: the result is positive in that it is the fruit of consensus but only time will tell whether it is effective or ineffective; - Commission: after Nice, it accentuates its character of being a supranational and independent institution, and the risk that it may become just a secretariat of the Council is avoided; - "equation" between qualified majority/codecision: the results are clearly insufficient; - composition of the EP: it is difficult to "guess the logic" behind decisions taken in Nice.