Priority to the general European interest. The European Parliament has consolidated its position in the Union's institutional framework by explicitly providing in two cases priority to the general European interest in defending its prerogatives. It's a sign of strength and self-confidence. No way do I wish to criticise the previous battles in which Parliament took the risk of delaying the Community decision if it felt that its institutional powers were not being fully respected: these were necessary battles along the path of the EU's democratisation process, and to lay down the foundations of its powers. Today, Parliament may allow itself to be more flexible, while stressing that this flexibility in no way means a weakening of its will to defend parliamentary prerogatives.
I shall recall the two decisions in question. The first, taken by President Pat Cox, in deciding not to dispute before the Court of Justice the legal basis for the regulation on the statute of the European Company (see our bulletin of 2 February, p.8). The Council chose a legal basis that ruled out co-decision with Parliament. The latter could have appealed, but the procedure before the Court would have further delayed achievement of something we have been waiting for for some thirty years.. "Political primacy", Pat Cox explained, while stressing the specific reasons that warranted this attitude in this particular case.
A substantial compensation. The second decision concerns acceptance, by the EP plenary, of the compromise over the procedures by which the single market for financial services will be gradually introduced (see our bulletin on 6 February, pp.13/14). The mechanisms proposed by the Lamfalussy Committee provide for, with the aim of simplification and acceleration, certain implementing measures being taken directly by the Commission. Parliament was not calling for systematic consultation, but the ability to intervene each time it deemed necessary. It gave up on that, to demonstrate its will to push forward the economic reforms necessary for the success of the "Lisbon Strategy", but securing essential guarantees in exchange, such as: examination of the review of Article 202 of the Treaty (that regulates the delegation of the Commission's powers of execution); an equivalent power to that of the Council in the control of the use the Commission makes of competent delegations; the limitation to four years of the duration of these delegations in each specific case; transparency of the process for the adoption of each measure. Romano Prodi, moreover, undertook to take account of resolutions that Parliament may devote to the implementing measures as they are being drawn up.
Some parliamentarians demanded more; but, when one thinks of the obscure way in which measures on the functioning of financial markets are normally taken at national level, it is easy to conclude that the European system will be clearer and more transparent. And commissioner Frits Bolkestein considered that the compromise approved by Parliament had re-established confidence in the possibility of actually creating an integrated European financial market by 2005 (even though the texts to be adopted exceed forty and there still remain differences over legislation on pension funds). The basic texts will be submitted to the Parliament/Council co-decision procedure, but the implementing texts will be defined by two committees which, created last June, act under the responsibility of the Commission.
The institutional battle is not over. This attitude of Parliament proves the confidence it has now gained in its strength. It need no longer affirm itself in permanent battles over prerogatives. The general interest may prevail over institutional susceptibilities but without forgetting that, at times, this general interest passes precisely through this battle for parliamentary control over Commission and especially Council decisions. One example is the need to introduce genuine democratic control in the areas of asylum and immigration, which were transferred by the Amsterdam Treaty from the third pillar to the first, governed by the "Community method" (while waiting for the Convention to decide on the abolition of the third pillar). This transfer is an delusion if not accompanied by the Council/Parliament co-decision procedure. Almost everything that Parliament asks for with its two resolutions of last week (see our bulletin of 9 February, p.12) is justified.
In my opinion, Parliament should also broaden its intervention on certain economic issues which, apparently technica, have a direct link with the European model of society. I'll cite three: automobile distribution (for lack of formal consultation, the EP can approve a resolution); the second reading of the review of legislation on public procurement; the takeover scheme, when the Commission has presented its new proposals. Parliament should go beyond the technical aspect and decide on the "choice of society" that each of the three issues involves. (F.R.)