Seville, 21/06/2002 (Agence Europe) - The summit of the Party of European Liberal Democrats, chaired by Werner Hoyer, on the eve of the European Council of Seville, took place in the presence of the next President of the European Council, Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen, European Commission President Romano Prodi, and European Parliament President Pat Cox. Questioned by the press. before their meeting, over Mr. Prodi's ideas for reforming the Commission (see EUROPE of 19 June, page 13, and a Look Behind the News of 20 and 21 June), Mr. Rasmussen and his Belgian counterpart, Guy Verhofstadt criticised these proposals. While considering, both of them, that the Commission President "has the right" to make proposals on the way his institutions works, they said quite clearly: we are not in favour. We don't need a Commission with two types of commissioners, exclaimed Mr. Verhofstadt, stipulating that he could be in favour of a Commission limited in size, as long as equality between States was preserved. Mr. Rasmussen agreed: I'm in total agreement, we have to avoid creating divisions between Member states. And Latvian Prime Minister Andris Berzins, who took part in the same conference, said he also agreed with them. (Following the liberal summit, a participant told us that Romano Prodi had made a brilliant speech on the future of Europe.). On institutional issues, Mr. Verhofstadt also declared: I hope that the European Council will adopt conclusions on the Solana Report, but "I am not prepared to discuss issues that involve changes to the treaty, as that is the responsibility of the European Convention. We must "not pre-empt" the work of the European Convention, but it is clear that the internal reform of the Commission, Council and European Parliament are pieces of the same puzzle, said, for his part, Graham Watson, leader of the Liberal Group in the EP, at the same press conference. President Cox, for his part, said that Heads of State and Government needed the assurance of the European Parliament's commitment to being an "active partner" of the Council and Commission in efforts to make in view of "better regulation" and better implementation of European legislation.
One week before presenting the programme of the Danish Presidency, Anders Fogh Rasmussen placed emphasis on the impending presidency's "top priority", enlargement. Sending out a warning: I am worried that the "window of opportunity" of the next semester should close and that even a "small delay" may delay the whole process, as in 2003-2004 the Union will focus on the European Convention and the IGC, and, in 2005-2006 on the new financial perspectives. He then assured: the Danish Presidency wants to respect the timetable, we must take a decision at the Copenhagen Summit, and we must reach a "clear conclusion" on direct aid to farmers at the latest end-October or the "very beginning" of November. I urge my colleagues, the Danish Prime Minister hammered home, not to take enlargement hostage of their "ambitions to reform the CAP or to avoid such a reform", we need it but our Presidency "is not prepared to make this reform a condition for enlargement. We must not allow the quarrel over direct aid to farmers "derail" the enlargement process, Graham Watson also insisted, recalling that, over the past fifteen years, the Liberal members of the European Parliament had always voted in favour of a reform of the CAP. As for Rasmussen, he cited other difficulties of the enlargement process: the problem of Cyprus, the Irish referendum, as well as issues that need settling over Kaliningrad.
Regarding one of the major topics of the European Council, asylum and immigration, the Chair of the ELDR, Werner Hoyer said he hoped that the Summit's conclusions would also deal with the causes of the phenomenon (and he also raised the problem of the Middle East, recalling that the Party had last May proposed convening a conference, a copy of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe, to attempt to resolve the problem). The debate on asylum and immigration is of great interest to us, as, following accession, our borders will be the Union's eastern borders, noted the Latvian Prime Minister. As for Pat Cox, he hoped that the European Council of Seville would reach a "fair and balanced" conclusion, based on "values" Since the end of the 80s, the number of legal immigrants in Europe has increased by 50%, he made a point of recalling. I am in favour of a "positive" approach, said Guy Verhofstadt regarding the possibility of European penalties for "uncooperative" third countries: according to him, by creating "wealth" in candidate countries, enlargement will contribute in part to resolving the problem (Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland were countries of emigration before joining the Community). According to the Belgian Prime Minister, "trade" will be a solution: we must discuss one of the causes of immigration here, the "protectionism of the Western world", he suggested. He then repeated: if the poor cannot export to our markets, they themselves will come to our markets, "you can't say no to imports and no to immigration". Mr Rasmussen said he completely agreed with Verhofstadt about the positive role that trade can have as "if goods don't cross borders people will", although he did say he was in favour of the Spanish proposals on immigration and asylum, and felt that the third countries must undertake jto "take back their citizens".
Pat Cox also asked about the second Irish referendum on the Treaty of Nice which should take place during the first half of October. Is it democratic to put the same question to citizens if they did not give the hoped for answer? Responding as an Irish deputy, and not as the president of the European Parliament, Pat Cox commented saying he was pleased to come from a democratic country where one can call on voters for their opinion and allow them to practice "active citizenship". Regarding the declaration expected from the European Council of Seville, in order to reassure the Irish in particular on the subject of keeping their neutrality, Mr Cox said: it will essentially be a matter of telling people who are not necessarily specialists in constitutional law, in "plain language", that nothing forces Ireland to give up its neutrality.