Brussels, 18/12/2001 (Agence Europe) - The majority of MEPs who intervened during the extraordinary session of 17 December on the European Council of Laeken mentioned the Laeken Declaration and were for the most part positive about it, even if several of them would have preferred the leading team to have been younger and not exclusively male (see yesterday's EUROPE pages 4 and 5). Some MEPs pointed out that the Laeken Declaration had raised a number of questions. Marianne Thyssen (Belgian Christian Democrat) remarked that Guy Verhofstadt posed the questions whereas Jean-Luc Dehaene would give the answers. "Dehaene helped me to pose the questions, I would help him to give the answers", replied Guy Verhofstadt, and added, "It was not because I did not want to answer the questions." Some rhetorical questions "are not questions at all", whereas some questions such as the one about the danger of the "hegemony of the powerful", were not posed at all, commented Reinhard Rack, Austrian EPP member. Mr Verhofstadt stated that he agreed with criticism of the absence of women in the Presidium of the Convention at this stage but claimed that he could only suggest to governments and Parliaments to put women forward for seats on the Presidium that had not yet been taken. Mr Verhofstadt insisted on the importance of not underestimating the importance of the regions, described as "constitutional", participating in the Convention and stated that he had spoken to the President of the Committee of the Regions. He described how he came from a federal country like Germany and Austria, whereas other counties introduce such aspects in a piecemeal way. The Belgian Prime minister was keen to point out and exclaimed that the federalism is the only way of allowing the different communities to live together and avoid violence.
Louis Michel referred to the international situation and was of the opinion that the European Parliament should play a greater role if the international coalition against terrorism continues. He described how the situation could undermine the quality of life in EU countries and make the struggle against terrorism and the silencing of the opposition in "strong-arm" countries confusing. He added that Europe must not be systematically dragged without consultation into blindly supporting the USA. He declared that by getting to know Parliament, he was beginning to feel good amongst its representatives and that the freedom and freshness there suited him very well. The Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs declared that one day he hoped to join the others in the Parliament for the refreshing intellectual atmosphere.
German Social Democrat, Klaus Hänsch, said that they had wanted a Convention and now had one but this meant that MEPs now had a "new responsibility" as institutional reform was in their hands for the first time. Mr Hänsch said that he was not sure that a Constitution would be obtained by the time the work of the Convention came to an end but that the "categorical imperative" was to work in that direction. CDU MEP Hartmut Nassauer said that the Convention had to strive for as large a consensus as possible as this was the only way of getting he results of its work accepted. Several MEPs criticised the choice of the trio chosen to preside over the convention. British Labour Party MEP, David Martin described them as "three men of a certain age" who were individually intellectually competent but collectively, did not reflect the "diversity" of Europe. The same criticism was made by the Italian Co-President of the Greens (elected in Belgium), Monica Frassoni, who would have preferred for the Convention to elect its President itself. Pernille Frahm spoke in a similar vein (Danish United Left/Nordic Left Green) who did, however, welcome the results o the Summit on enlargement. Another Dane, Ole Krarup from Europe of Democracies and Diversities referred to the "three pensioners" who would apply "the art of the men from the Chinese State" in order to get a young message across. Gerhard Hager (Joerg Haider's FPÖ party) was convinced that the choice was the right one and French Socialist MEP Catherine Lalumière emphasised that the "three strong personalities" had a clear European commitment. Only a few MEPs mentioned the quarrel about seats, which is what Roberta Angellini had done (Alleanza nazionale) to get the Food Authority to go to Parma. Piia Kauppi and Ukke Suominen (both from the EPP-DE) mentioned the problem of the Food Authority. Some of the voices of disagreement included that of Briton, Jonathan Evans, who criticised the Belgian Presidency as a whole as being too ambitious (especially in fiscal matters) and criticised Louis Michel for describing the "British led force" in Afghanistan as a "European Union initiative".
Another voice raised in disagreement was that of Georges Berthu (NA, France), who reproached the Laeken Declaration for having "drowned" the idea of Nice to examine the role of national parliaments and for having introduced the notion of Constitution, which was not included in the sub-sections of Nice ("the federalist pressure group came back to the charge", he said). Roy Perry, British Conservative, insisted on the fact that, even if we need Europe, it is a question of "independent and sovereign States". Welcoming the presence of European Ombudsman Jacob Söderman among the observers, he felt that the members of the Convention would do well to listen to him.
Barnier speaks of "responsible, useful and useable" work
The debate was closed by Institutional Affairs Commissioner Michel Barnier, who affirmed that the Convention should be "permeable" to suggestions from outside, from the civil society, and that the latter should be listened to and, if necessary, should give a hearing. At the time when six or seven Member States are on the way to general elections (France, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland and no doubt Portugal), he said great attention must be paid to what citizens have to say. Regarding the "high quality trio" that is to organise the Convention, Mr Barnier reacted to comments about their age and spoke of their "youthful spirit" and assured that "we shall need their authority". Mr Barnier, moreover, welcomed the "open" mandate given to the Convention, while stressing the responsibility incumbent upon its members. If the experiment is a success, then all the other reforms will be according to this same method, he concluded, repeating that the Convention must take time before tackling institutional work to ask itself what is expected of the European project. On this fundamental question, "I have reason to believe that the Chair of the Convention plans to question the Member States through every possible modern method and, if asked, by going to the capitals".