Strasbourg, 02/10/2001 (Agence Europe) - Come to discuss the White Paper on European Governance presented by the Commission on 25 July (see EUROPE/Documents, No. 2247/2248 dated 7 August 2001 annexed to bulletin 8022) for the second time with the European Parliament, President Romano Prodi specially made a point of dissipating "some misunderstandings" which the document has raised among MEPs, especially regarding the Commission's claimed intention of asking for a "blank cheque regarding the functioning of the executive outside Parliament's legitimate control". "It is not true, and reading the White Paper shows this unambiguously", said Romano Prodi, observing that the proposals it makes aim in particular to guarantee Parliament an equal role to that of the Council, going well beyond the possibility of requesting the "calling back" of executive decisions that some MEPs are demanding with particular insistence. This option simply partially amends the system in force, whereas "we need a structural change", setting out "who is responsible for executing policies", considered Mr. Podi, for whom it is an essential point "if we want to know who to answer to", and for whom the White Paper "hands back the Commission to role of executing policies and places back into question the operating mode and, in certain cases, the need of the current system of "comitology". "We are already considering how a "simple legal provision may work enabling the Council and Parliament - placed on an equal footing - to ensure the follow-up of actions of the executive and controller", but for now, "it seems more appropriate to us to have this proposal preceded by a hearing phase", Mr. Prodi assured his audience. Among issues raised by Parliament, Prodi turned to:
- Consultation of civil society by the Commission. "We have never nor shall we ever propose replacing Parliament's role or that of other democratically elected institutions by forms of spontaneous fora of civil society", Mr. Prodi exclaimed, observing that collaboration with these organisations occurred today "in a confused and opaque manner", whereas the proposals set out in the White Paper will enable it to operate "in the full glare of the sun". The Commission has never proposed that NGOs be represented within a future Convention to prepare the IGC, Prodi also told the parliamentarians, stressing that, with the White Paper, "the Treaty will not change, and all decisions will continue to be taken by the institutions according to the democratic rules in force".
- new forms of regulations (like self-regulation) proposed by the White Paper. They do not weaken Parliament's role, and the Commission proposes linking them to "principles and practices that guarantee democratic control", said Mr. Prodi. As for the creation of a "regulations agency", he recalled that "there would have to be a legislative act", and that Parliament would therefore be fully involved "in drawing up the necessary standards of guarantees that will accompany the adoption of this act". Prodi also stressed that the White Paper proposed, "for the first time", associating Parliament "in the complex process of the execution of the open co-ordination method" (launched by the Lisbon Summit in March 2000: Ed), a "form of co-operation of an intergovernmental nature, in areas situated at the frontier of Community law", but that must respond to a "logic compatible with the functioning of the institutional triangle".
Finally, Prodi repeated that the process that the European Council of Laeken and the White Paper would trigger were not the same exercise, but are "two linked themes", and that the White Paper is therefore "a first phase in the framework of the debate on the future of the Union.". This phase must not be limited to a mere academic debate, but must take on a concrete nature by precise operational proposals", he stated, while noting that "acting rapidly does not mean acting without waiting for the necessary maturity of options and reflections, especially those" emanating from the European Parliament. The Commission President therefore promised MEPs that he had no intention of "proposing actions before you have expressed your opinions on this issue" and spoke out in favour of a dialogue between institutions, "and also if need be through a Commission/Parliament/Council working group" "aimed at examining our proposals" on governance.
Speaking on behalf of the EPP-ED Group, Konrad Scwaiger, like many other MEPs, welcomed the idea of creating such a working group, as well as the Commission's intention, announced in the White Paper, of focusing on certain areas. Furthermore, the German MEP considered that "there is no sense in the Commission creating its own sub-structures in Member States, as local and regional authorities are already there to second its work at that level.
For the Socialist group, Johannes Swoboda stressed the need for both a reform of comitology (necessary but insufficient) and a call back mechanism for the Parliament. The Austrian MEP hoped that the commission would not be making any proposals at Laeken without consulting them. Cecilia Malmström said that the White Paper incorporated proposals that the Liberal Group had been calling for for years, mentioning subsidiarity, proportionality and a "change of mentality" at the Commission. In this connection, the Swedish MEP expressed indignation at the completely unlikely opposition that had been caused by "excellent" proposals by Neil Kinnock. For the Greens/EFA group, the Austrian Johannes Voggenhuber was far more critical, denouncing the White Paper's paternalistic tone (paternalistische Färbung) - you promise citizens greater explanation and more consultation but that is not what is at stake, the problem is that the Commission has no concept of democracy in the European area, he exclaimed, adding that the EU was continuing to issue one regulation after another without daring to admit that it is making laws since it is aware that it does not have the necessary legitimacy. Democracy was also the central issue for Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (SPD, Germany) who spoke on behalf of the United Left/Green Nordic Alliance, who said Yes to transparency, but also Yes to responsibility and dialogue with civil society representatives. Gianfranco Dell'Alba, speaking on behalf of the Italian Radicals, said that rather than carry out this largely illegible process, the Commission should try to win back its role as a catalyst for integration (that it is losing to an ever greater extent, according to Mr Dell'Alba), and also dare to ask what the external face of the Union was ("il volto esterno"). Nigel Farage, speaking on behalf of the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, said that the debate over the White Paper tended to hide the fact that the Nice Treaty is dead. The Irish voted No to it and would vote No again if another referendum were held, he hammered home, arguing that the only way to allow citizens to express what they wanted was to hold referenda. His remarks caused lively reaction from various British MEPs, like Barbara O'Toole for Labour (who said he had "learnt nothing") and the Conservative Christopher Beazley, who said that Mr Farage did not believe in parliamentary democracy, calling for a referendum every five minutes. Mr Beazley also warned against consulting civil society, since he feared that this would only boil down to consulting lobby groups which "do their job, to represent their own vested interests" rather than the interests of society in general. Another Conservative, Roy Perry, regretted that the White Paper said nothing about the role of the European Ombudsman, and said to Mr Prodi that if he wanted to know what people thought, he should come and spend an afternoon in the Parliament's Committee on Petitions. Mr Perry advised the Commission to "listen to the people, be clear about your objectives and explain them in simple and clear language".