Strasbourg, 17/05/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament will vote in its mini-session at the end of May on the report by Mendez de Vigo/Seguro on the Treaty of Nice and the future of Europe. This concerns, asserted during the press lunch in Strasbourg, the French Socialist Pervenche Beres, a solid text, which explains what we want in the future and calls for the adoption of the Convention method, as wanted in particular by the French Socialists. Within the new Convention that will prepare the next IGC, the formula of the four parts (governments, national parliaments, European Parliament and Commission) must be maintained, even if the balance can be different as opposed to the Convention that drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we exclude the governments, noted Mrs Beres, they will then gather amongst themselves; as for the national parliaments, they have everything to win from this method, which ensures their effective participation in the process. One of the "magical" aspects of the Convention on the Charter came from people, admits Mrs Beres, when underlining the fact that this method has also lead to positions where it was no longer a question of the smallest common denominator winning. The French Socialists must, she concludes, monitor the composition and the competences devolved to the Convention and the articulating of its works with those of the future intergovernmental conference.
Must the European Parliament say no to the Treaty of Nice? The Parliament would ridicule itself if it voted a "vengeful" text, felt on the same occasion the French Socialist Olivier Duhamel who sees in this treaty, more as a "large step back", a "scandalous non progress". It is better to digest Nice and think of the after, he said, when noting that, without Nice, there would not be a "post Nice" and the launching of an open debate, a mobilisation that could pass a number of ideas held by the European Parliament. Thus, Nice will have had a purpose.
As for the new weighting of votes, it was, according to Pervenche Beres, an impossible exercise, but which was required, as there had been no "redistribution of capital" since the Treaty of Rome… Now, this redistribution has taken place (even if we have the right to regret, as in an administrative council), in a sordid and soulless climate, one without vision, but it was necessary. As for the formation of the European Commission, Mrs Beres notes a "double loosening", due to the position adopted by the Commission (which ends up supporting the inevitability of one Commissioner per country) and the "non-functioning of the Franco-German couple" (an agreement would have existed over a Commission having less Commissioners than the EU has Member States, but the Germans had dropped it to placate the small countries).