Brussels, 31/05/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament, approving with very few amendments in a vote of 338 to 98, with 59 abstentions, the report by Inigo Mendez de Vigo (Partido popular, E) and Antonio José Seguro (Socialist, P), issued a two-phase opinion on the Treaty of Nice, an opinion linked to the results of the Laeken Summit. Its resolution (395 to 70, 23 abstentions) states that "the perception of the Treaty of Nice will depend upon the outcome of Laeken, which could remedy its weaknesses". The text adds that the EP will "take into account the results of this summit" when issuing its opinion on the opening of the next IGC. In its 45-point resolution, which will be published in full in EUROPE Documents, Parliament also asks the national Parliaments (371 to 97, 25 abstentions), when voting on the Treaty of Nice, to "express their firm commitment to the organisation of a convention". Further, the EP calls for the next IGC to be convened in the latter half of 2003, enabling the new Treaty to be adopted in December of the same year, prior to the European elections in 2004. Parliament also "demands the triggering of a constitutional process" (304 to 136, 38 abstentions) culminating in the adoption of a Constitution of the European Union (298 to 132, 31 abstentions).
Anna Lindh lays emphasis on the objectives of the European undertaking and proposes a "cocktail"
of solutions for holding a public debate prior to the next IGC
The Treaty of Nice "is not what the European Parliament had requested", but it contains the "seeds of the comprehensive reform" sought by Parliament, observed Inigo Mendez de Vigo, who argued for the establishment of a convention on the model of the one that drafted the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The convention's work should result in the document to be examined by the governments, he continued. Parliament will make proposals for a "constitution", a word "we mustn't be afraid to use", declared Mr Mendez de Vigo. He also asked that the negotiation of the next reform be concluded before the European elections in June 2004. Antonio José Seguro said he could not understand the reluctance of some Member States with regard to the idea of a convention, exclaiming: "we do not want to replace the governments, we just want to work on an equal footing with them; Parliament does not want to be part of the problem, but part of the solution". While denouncing the lack of boldness of the Treaty of Nice, which leaves him "disillusioned", Mr Seguro acknowledged that the Treaty has the merit of paving the way to enlargement of the Union.
Council President Anna Lindh made the same observation, adding that, "for the first time, we are directly asking citizens what they expect of Europe", through the web site managed by the Commission. The Swedish and Belgian Presidencies have carried out the mandate issued in Nice, which was to initiate a wide public debate, she commented. Mentioning the idea of organising a convention, Mrs Lindh noted that the convention should not anticipate the essential debate with the public and that it is difficult to choose a single solution. A decision in this connection will be taken in Laeken, but "we hope to point out the right course" at the Göteburg European Council. According to Mrs Lindh, what is needed is a sort of "cocktail", because "we need a convention, we need technical preparatory work and we need an open forum that could meet in 2002, for a year's duration, and make recommendations on the items to be placed on the agenda of the next IGC". "The open forum cannot be an alternative to a convention, but preparation for it", exclaimed Elmar Brok (CDU), Chair of the EP Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Council could make a half-yearly summary of debate at national and European level, continued Mrs Lindh. In contrast, she rejected the idea of giving responsibility for this reflection to a restricted group of experts who "could work very quickly but where all States would not be represented". And mentioning the debate between "the most radical federalists" and their adversaries, the Swedish Foreign Minister noted that each country has its own history and its own references and, rather than giving in to the "temptation to simplify things by concentrating on certain concepts, without taking reality into account, we first have to think about the objectives of the undertaking before focusing on the tools for building it."
During debate, Elmar Brok also criticised one of the proposals made by Lionel Jospin in his remarks on Monday, namely the idea of creating a "Congress" of national MPs, exclaiming: "We don't need a sort of Chinese People's Congress; we want to strengthen the national Parliaments 'at home'." EPP-ED Group Chair Hans-Gert Pöttering, who confirmed that "we are not satisfied with Nice", expressed a similar view, saying he was "a little surprised" that the French Prime Minister had not even mentioned broader powers for the European Parliament. "We expect the Göteborg Summit to point to the right direction" for the decisions to be taken in Laeken, and in particular not to hinder a decision in favour of the establishment of a convention, noted the CDU member. Enrique Baron, Socialist Group Chair, caught the attention, in passing, of those critical of Lionel Jospin's remarks, saying: "You can see for yourselves the contribution our colleague Silvio Berlusconi has given to the debate on Europe as Member of the European Parliament…" An open forum cannot replace the convention, observed the Spanish Socialist, who recalled that COSAC - the Conference of European Affairs Committees - has come out in favour of the convention (see EUROPE of 16 May, p. 5). Liberal Group Chair Pat Cox noted that his country, Ireland, is the only one to have planned a referendum on the Treaty of Nice. "I will vote 'yes' in the referendum", announced Mr Cox, who lashed out against those in Ireland conducting a "very active" campaign against the Treaty, adding that if enlargement is the goal, there is no need to say yes to the Treaty of Nice; the Treaty has given too much scope to qualified majority; the EU is in the process of being "militarised". "I am sickened when I hear people like Gerry Adams, who refuses to demilitarise forces in Northern Ireland, speak of 'militarisation' in reference to the great peace project European construction represents", exclaimed Mr Cox. He recalled in passing that an MEP, former General Philippe Morillon, served "with dignity" the cause of peace in the Balkans. "I would like the Irish people to give a clear message to the European elite", noted Danish Member Ole Krarup, on behalf of the Group of Europe of Democracies and Diversities, who chose to attack a specific aspect of the Treaty of Nice, namely its provisions on the European political parties which will ensure that such parties "prosper even if they have no dues and no members." Gerard Collins (Fianna Fail, Union for Europe of Nations, IRL), appreciates the Treaty of Nice for reasons criticised by other MEPs: the expansion of qualified majority has been reined in and unanimity has been maintained for taxation. The Treaty has not created a two-tier Europe in which the big States dictate the pace to the detriment of the smaller States, remarked Mr Collins, who declared: "The EU will remain a Union of peoples and States." On behalf of the Verts/ALE, Johannes Voggenhuber (A) asserted that European construction must be transformed from an undertaking of the elite to a res publica. "This is the age of Parliaments", the "only bodies destined to be constituent", he observed, welcoming the European Parliament's initiative of creating "an alliance of Parliaments". Sylvia Kaufmann (PDS, D), speaking on behalf of the GUE/NGL, stressed the importance of the "post-Nice" period for "saving ourselves from Nice" and emphasised the objectives and policies to be conducted, welcoming the fact that Lionel Jospin had given them priority over institutional questions. Charles de Gaulle, of the Technical Group of Independent Members, denounced the "institutional gesticulations" of those calling for a "federation of nation-states": some Social Democrat leaders tend to be drawn towards a "European nationalism" and "I reject all forms of European nationalism", concluded Mr de Gaulle.
Napolitano: The EP does not give orders to national Parliaments
The European Parliament is very attentive to the role of the national Parliaments, commented Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra), Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. He made a point of noting that, in the Mendez de Vigo-Seguro Resolution, Parliament does not tell national Parliaments what they have to do concerning ratification of the Treaty of Nice. "We would like to see convergence on the convention, but a convention that is more than just a forum making friendly recommendations" and which, on the contrary, will propose specific texts. In his view, it is in the interests of the governments for a convention to be organised, to avoid ending up in the "dead end, the cage, the nightmare of the last night in Nice".
Andrew Duff (Liberal Democrat, GB) reacted to reports that "certain Prime Ministers" appear to be prepared to accept the convention, while deciding simultaneously to "withdraw their own representatives from it" (at a press conference, Mr Duff said that Tony Blair had already discussed with a number of Prime Ministers, particularly Messrs Verhofstadt, Persson and Aznar, the possibility of governments not sending representatives to a future convention). In his view, this would be "an insult to this Parliament" and "unacceptable".
Among the Members insisting on the establishment of a convention, Luciano Caveri (Union Valdôtaine and member of the Liberal Group) requested that the future convention attach importance to the regional level.
William Abitbol (French member of the Group of Europe of Democracies and Diversities) finds the Treaty of Nice "villainous" for the future of France and Europe: "Not only is it worth nothing, but it is also dangerous". In his view, neither France nor Germany should ratify it. Georges Berthu (Non-Attached), announced the presentation of a counter-report on the Treaty of Nice (to which EUROPE will return): the report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is "much too indulgent", he commented. In contrast, Richard Corbett (Labour, GB) praised the work of the two rapporteurs who steered Parliament towards a "very reasonable analysis" of the Treaty, whereas, at the start, there was a considerable risk of rejection of the Treaty by the EP further to an "unnatural alliance" between those who claim it goes too far and those for whom it is too timid. Why have the Danes not planned a referendum on the Treaty? Precisely because it does not make provision for any further transfers of sovereignty, remarked Mr Corbett.
The British Conservatives, noted Edward McMillan-Scott on their behalf, are opposed to the resolution tabled by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs because they have misgivings about the convention and are opposed to both writing the Charter into the Treaty and dropping unanimity for matters of taxation. Neil MacCormick (Scottish member of Verts/ALE), on the other hand, called for a European Constitution, while arguing for a European confederation rather than federation.
German Social Democrat Jo Leinen noted that this was the first time the European Parliament had not unequivocally said yes to an EU Treaty. This is new and should be a warning signal to governments, he added. In 50 years of European construction, this is the "first Treaty of European regression", regretted François Bayrou (UDF, F), who added: "we are offering the applicant States a fool's deal; they are entering a powerless and opaque house."
Michel Barnier: there is a need for "crossed fertilisation" of national debates
"It is not surprising that we do not all analyse the Treaty the same way." It is a "useful" Treaty (especially because it switches the light from yellow to green as far as enlargement is concerned), but one for the "short term" (particularly because there are "too many vetoes", which "with 30 members, will be a source of powerlessness"), said Michel Barnier, Commissioner for institutional affairs, after three hours of debate. "We must use and then go beyond this Treaty", he observed, noting that "at five o'clock in the morning in Nice, the Heads of State and Government realised that they could not leave it at that, as if they themselves had a guilty conscience." "We have the time to launch a public debate" on the meaning of Europe, said Mr Barnier. He went on to note that the Göteborg Summit should "find a way to take an inventory of national debates". There is a need to avoid "juxtaposed" debates and to enable "cross fertilisation" instead. The Commission is prepared to contribute thereto, he promised. In 2002-2003, work will need to be structured, added Mr Barnier, recalling, as President Prodi put it, that "we support a convention" in which the four institutional partners will participate (Member States, national Parliaments, European Parliament and Commission). This convention "will not take decisions, but will submit proposals" to the IGC, concluded Mr Barnier, saying the European Commission would play its full role in the post-Nice process.
UEF and JEF appeal to Members
On the occasion of the EP's vote on the Mendez de Vigo-Seguro Report on the Treaty of Nice and the future of the European Union, the Union of European Federalists (UEF) and the Young European Federalists (JEF) sponsored a demonstration before Parliament, four demonstrators wearing masks in the likeness of Jacques Chirac, Lionel Jospin, Gerhard Schröder and Tony Blair.
The UEF and JEF presented a text to MEPs asking them to: - vote by a wide majority in favour of a "federal European Constitution"; - act immediately to obtain from the Laeken Summit the "start of a democratic constituent process, assigning to a constitutional convention composed of representatives of the dual legitimacy of peoples and States of the European Union, the task of drafting a federal European Constitution, and not simply a discussion paper that will be renegotiated by a traditional intergovernmental conference"; - request the European Parliament to begin immediately to prepare its contributions to the draft federal European Constitution to be drawn up by the future convention; - express their firm support for the Heads of State and Government who in recent months have proposed initiatives for a "European federation" and a "European federal government", and who wish to move forward in this direction.