Brussels, 05/12/2002 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday, President Prodi presented the European Parliament with the second contribution of the European Commission on the European Convention entitled, "Peace, Freedom and Solidarity for the European Union" (which we will publish in its entirety). Mr Prodi also wanted to explain to MEPs the idea behind the exercise carried out in parallel with the Commission and its document on a European Constitution that began with the outline provided by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (see p 5). Romano Prodi was keen to emphasise that this did not involve a technical exercise or feasibility study and that the he and Commissioners Barnier and Vitorino had called on the experts to sketch an initial idea of the way in which the future treaty could be presented. The commission President insisted that the document had not been discussed and had certainly not been approved by the College. He indicated, nevertheless, that he had informed Valéry Giscard d'Estaing about it, given that it should prove a very useful working instrument. The text will be put on the Internet Thursday evening.
The ideas contained in the Commission contribution to the Convention were largely supported by MEPs except for the idea that in the future the European Council will be able to censure the Commission. Mr Prodi replied that the Commission text was not a "definitive proposal" and the of course it would be necessary to discuss themes on which they did not agree. The issue of the Commission's responsibility to the European Parliament and European Council will need thrashing out, he acknowledged.
Asserting that the Union would become the "world's first supranational democracy" Mr Prodi sketched out the principles that had inspired the Commission's contribution:
1. More democracy. The commission suggests two innovative principles:
- Approval of the Commission. The Commission President to be elected by the European Parliament by at least two thirds of the votes cast in a secret ballot; the Council confirms this approval and in a joint agreement with the President, appoints the Commissioners, the Parliament approves the College.
- Dual accountability of the Commission to the Parliament and the Council. According to Mr Prodi, this proposal is a sensitive and courageous proposal that would, "give the triangular relationship between the main institutions more balance and strengthen the Commission's position as trustee of the general interest".
The European Parliament will benefit from: more co-decision that is always proposed by the Commission for all European laws, thanks to the abolition of the distinction between obligatory and non-obligatory spending.
2. More efficiency. Mr Prodi defines this as:
Abolition of the requirement for unanimity (which has, "marked the bleakest periods in the Union's recent history…think what could happen with 25 or more". Practically all the decision will be made by twofold, simple-majority vote, with the majority of the Member States and a majority of the Union's people. More sensitive decisions would require enhanced majorities.
- Reform of the Council's work. To the applause of MEPs, Mr Prodi declared that the idea of a "Union President" created more problems than it solved. Quoting Guy Verhofstadt, Mr Prodi asked "what the President would be doing for the other 360 days of the year when the Council is not meeting and George Bush is not calling?" The Commission is therefore calling for the rotational Presidency at the European Council, the General Affairs Council and the Permanent Representatives Committee to be maintained; for the other Councils, Ministers will have to elect a President from amongst themselves for a year.
- Creation of a new post of Secretary of the Union for Foreign Affairs, who will be jointly appointed by the European Council and the Commission. The position will also incorporate Vice President of the Commission and who will "report personally to both the European Council and the Commission President". Mr Prodi admitted that such a change will require a transition period at the end of which the Secretary of the Union will be able to take full charge of his duties: exercising the Commission's right of initiative autonomously in foreign affairs 'the Council of Member States may, however request proposals from him); responsibility for implementing common decisions; sole representative for external foreign policy; trade and development will be also the charge of the Union Secretary, "working with the President of the Commission".
Mr Prodi said that the issue of the Euro-zone in the international arena needed to be settled as the Euro, "needs to become a force politically".
Greater simplification: The Commission proposes: three categories for legislative instruments - organic laws (enhanced majorities) - laws adopted by co-decision (by the Council and parliament) - Regulations adopted by the Commission for the purpose of implementing laws. Mr Prodi explained that the Commission would be responsible to the Council; the principle of transparency in committee procedures so advisory committees will be maintained.
Greater simplification: The Commission proposes: three categories for legislative instruments - organic laws (enhanced majorities) - laws adopted by co-decision (by the Council and parliament) - Regulations adopted by the Commission for the purpose of implementing laws. Mr Prodi explained that the Commission would be responsible to the Council; the principle of transparency in committee procedures so advisory committees will be maintained.
The debate: divergences on election of Commission President by Parliament
During the debate, the President of the EPP-ED group, Hans-Gert Pöttering said that he fundamentally agreed with the Commission proposals, while wanting to highlight the issue of subsidiarity. He warned that if the Convention conclusions led to inter-governmental primacy, they would be unable to approve it. (In a communiqué, British Conservative Timothy Kirkhope from the EPP-ED group, attacked the Commission's proposal to get rid of unanimity and used the occasion to criticise Tony Blair and his government's absence from the discussion in this critical period, contrary to Margaret Thatcher in the past). Enrique Barron the leader of the Socialist group warmly welcomed the Commission's suggestions but that the possibility of the Council censuring the Commission in the future would provoke an institutional imbalance. Mr Barron declared that unanimity should not be demanded at the European Council (in Corfu, the European council had voted, he said, in a referring to the blockage during the Dehaene Presidency of the Commission by the United Kingdom) for confirming the election of the Commission President by the Parliament. According to Andrew Duff, speaking on behalf of the Liberals, the Commission document would undoubtedly merit of shifting the debate at the Convention about where power lies. The British Liberal considers that the Commission could have gone further and have proposed that the Commissioners responsible, the President of the Ecofin and JHA Councils, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, for the GUE/NGL welcomed the aim of making the EU the largest supranational democracy in the world and the affirmation of the double nature of the Union, States and peoples (whereas Inigo Mendez de Vigo from the Partido Popular would have preferred the use of the word "citizens"). Johannes Voggenhuber (Greens/EFA) described the document as "cautious, intelligent and sometimes clever" but which failed to create much enthusiasm but that the Commission was on the "right side", that of the Parliament. Luis Queiro from the Union for a Europe of Nations had hoped that the Convention would have developed "realistic" proposals, "We have confidence in the countries, we want more democracy not more bureaucracy". Jens-Peter Bonde, President of the EDD group wanted to know who was going to be the loser, the citizen or the elector. Georges Berthu (French sovereignist, non-attached) criticised the Commission for having sought to increase its powers using the pretext of representing the general interest. He insisted that the monopoly of the Commission's initiative was like a "planner" who claimed to know the prices better than the market.
"Everyone is currently talking about Penelope rather than the good document you presented", this comment summed the regrets of Inigo Mendez de Vigo (EPP-Spain). The independence of a President of the Commission, elected by the European Parliament with the European council being able to censure it, risked getting compromised, he warned. Elmar Brok of the CDU wanted to know what the Commission wanted and was worried that the position of the MEPs would be reduced to that of "eunuchs". German Social democrat Klaus Hänsch asked what would happen if the European Council wanted to withdraw confidence from the Commission President and the Parliament sought to maintain it. According to Mr Hänsch, the election of the Commission President by the Parliament with a 2/3 majority would not allow the choice of the European elections to be reflected and that they would become prisoners of a permanent compromise. Italian Radical Gianfranco Dell'Alba echoed these sentiments and declared that the Pötterings and Barons would only have to unite among themselves. Antonio Tajani (Forza Italia) wanted to know whether the French formula of a double executive with the Commission with Raffarin and the Council with Chirac, for example would be better replaced with a single President appointed by the European council and elected by a 2/3 majority by the Parliament. French Socialist, Pervenche Berès wanted to extend the Commission proposals on overall external EU representation beyond the Euro-zone.