Strasbourg, 19/11/2003 (Agence Europe) - The Italian Presidency is convinced that, in the final phase, even Member States that are calling, at the IGC, for major changes to be made to the European Convention will be able to "assess the common advantages (of an ambitious treaty) compared to limited and specific sacrifices", Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Roberto Antonione affirmed on Wednesday at the EP on behalf of the Presidency. The overall draft presented to the meeting in Naples, he said, will be based on the spirit of the Convention, the draft of which may be "adapted, clarified, specified but certainly not changed in nature". On the subject of Tuesday's ministerial IGC (yesterday's EUROPE, p.5), Mr Antonione said on the subject of the European Foreign Minister that the Presidency's proposals mainly aim to strengthen provisions on the minister's responsibility in order to ensure consistency between the CFSP and EU external action. These proposals specify that the Commission cannot call for his resignation without Council agreement. A final agreement on this subject "cannot be separated" from an overall agreement on institutional matters, he recalled. He said the Italian proposals on alleviating treaty review procedures in the future (limited to "specific parts of Chapter III") seek to reconcile "the necessary involvement of national parliaments, an undeniable element of democratic legitimacy, and the need to avoid rigidity" which would prevent the enlarged Union from adjusting. Mr Antonione also announced that the Presidency would develop an updated version of the Danish opt-out protocol on JHA issues in order to allow the Danish to go on to an "opt-in".
The optimism expressed by Günter Verheugen, who spoke on behalf of the Commission, was a little more mitigated. Beware of reaching an agreement in which "you will finally be appalled yourselves", he told governments recalling the unfortunate experience of Nice. He said they had accepted the Treaty of Nice because they "needed it" due to enlargement, not because they thought it sufficient, he insisted. He went on to underline several elements that the Commission finds crucial: - dual majority in Council, enlargement of qualified majority, strengthened EP legislative role, the "double hat" for the future Foreign Minister - who must be the European Commission Vice-President (and not just a "guest" at the Commission) -, the budgetary powers of the Parliament, facilitated review (an EU which continues to enlarge must not "close itself up in a constitutional straightjacket". The Commissioner for enlargement also called for "understanding" for the future Member States which, a few weeks after having ratified their accession to the EU (negotiated on the basis of the Nice Treaty), are to ratify a new treaty. Be this as it may, Mr Verheugen wanted to warn his "Polish friends" (which have a "very determined" approach to the IGC) that the proposals on double majority in Council are based on the fact that there is "equality" between Member States, but the "population" component of this double majority aims to reflect "democratic legitimacy".
Pervenche Berès asks why Andrew Duff has not been chosen to represent Parliament at the IGC
Before opening the debate, French Socialist Pervenche Berès, who stressed the importance of having two MEPs present at the IGC, criticised the "arrangements made behind closed doors within a group" (the EPP-ED, where Inigo Mendez de Vigo resigned to replace Elmar Brok: see EUROPE of 14 November, p.4). Why not choose Andrew Duff (British Liberal Democrat), who would represent us very well?, she asked. After having thanked Mr Mendez de Vigo for the role that he has played, President Cox explained that he had referred this matter to the Conference of Presidents and, although in the beginning there were many different views, they finally reached "sufficient impetus" to reach an agreement on Mr Brok's appointment.
While thanking Pervenche Berès for her moral support, Andrew Duff, said he accepted the decision reached by the Conference of Presidents, and hence the designation of Mr Brok "whose qualities we all know". On the other hand, sovereignist William Abitbol finds it "clumsy" that the EP should be represented by two MEPs of the same nationality.
Debate: many MEPs raise the problem of budgetary powers
According to Elmar Brok, who was speaking for the EPP-ED, the Presidency seems to be going in the right direction, and must be "encouraged", given the risk that the "Empire (of national bureaucracies) will strike back". On the subject of the Foreign Minister, Mr Brok said: there are not just two hats (CFSP and Commission), there are three, because he must also preside the General Affairs Council. On the question of power, and especially on the weighting of votes in Council, the CDU elected member insisted: we do not like the Treaty of Nice precisely because ("and our Polish friends must know this") it makes decision-making in an enlarged Union extremely difficult. The European Parliament, added Enrique Baron, President of the Socialist Group, had accepted the Treaty of Nice not because it liked it, but because there was enlargement. Regarding the proposals of the Ecofin Council in budgetary matters, he exclaimed: "Should we give a copy of the Treaty to the Ecofin ministers so that they develop a 'Community culture'?" Mr Baron recalled the priorities of the Socialist family presented last week by Giuliano Amato: binding nature of the Charter of Rights, the "secular" nature of European integration, maintenance of the legislative Council, achievement of economic and social governance, and a legal base for services of general interest in the Treaty (EUROPE of 18 November, p.10).
It was President Cox who raised the question at the beginning of the session, stating that he had held a series of talks on the issue of budgetary powers and that the Parliament must "lay down red lines" not for corporatist reasons but because the "power of the purse is at the very heart of the prerogatives of each parliament". Mr Antonione replied very clearly at the end of the debate: the Italian Presidency does not agree to any intervention on the part of the Ecofin Council as no Council, including the Ecofin Council, can present amendments to the text of the Convention. On the level of principles, the Presidency undertakes to safeguard the essential prerogatives of the Parliament.
Andrew Duff (British Liberal) said he was somewhat sceptical about the ability to settle all the problems in conclave, especially the "main patriotic questions" such as vote weighting in Council (in his view, these will be resolved at four in the morning, on the last day of the summit). Ministers, he feels, are rather "clever" when it comes to unpicking the fundamental aspects of compromises already reached. French national Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL) said he was "neither surprised nor distressed" by the difficulties of the IGC, but felt that the main problem was that the Union policies are not known, when it is precisely in the implementation of such policies that the Union has a meaning for citizens (he cited the conclusion of the Social Forum which met recently in Paris, and which expressed total rejection of the liberal model but a "deep desire for Europe".). Kathalijne Buitenweg, speaking for the Greens/EFA Group said it was the attempts made by the Ecofin Council to eat away at the budgetary prerogatives of the Parliament that made her indignant. She also accuses her own government, the government of the Netherlands, and speaks of a real "coup d'état", asking whether the European Council will end up sanctioning the absolute power of Finance Ministers. Gerard Collins (UEN, Ireland) considers the IGC must ensure equal representation at the Commission of small and large countries. As far as qualified majority is concerned, the individual requirements of States must be taken into account with regards foreign policy, and taxation must remain under the competence of Member States. William Abitbol (EDD) believes the IGC is moving increasingly further away from the concerns of citizens, neglecting policies in order to become a free-for-all on votes and seats. Another sovereignist, Georges Berthu, is also one of those who regret that the Convention had "hardly looked at" the part on policies and that the IGC is now moving along the same track (and rejects the "bridges" for going from unanimity to qualified majority).
Klaus Hänsch, Giorgio Napolitano and Nelly Maes raise questions of principle
In the work of the IGC, there is "something fundamentally wrong", according to Klaus Hänsch (German Social Democrat representing the EP at the IGC). Among ministers, he said, it is not the "resolve to create" which takes precedence but a "blocking mentality". Nearly all the changes suggested represent a step backward, simple things are made complicated, and the work of the Convention is not taken seriously, he deplores. According to Mr Verheugen, Mr Hänsch is right in asking this question, as it is political will that must be shown by participants at the IGC. The Commissioner said they must also ask one question: What is the alternative to the Constitution? Failure, he said, would not just be legal failure. We would be faced with "quite a different political scenario" potentially bringing with it "forces of disintegration". Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinsitra), Chair of the Constitutional Committee, airs concern in his turn of some expressions that Mr Antonione let slip, for example, when he speaks of "negotiation tactics". The IGC must not be a place of negotiation but a place where one verifies insufficiencies and contradictions. Mr Napolitano ends with a warning: "do not force the Parliament to give a negative judgement on the final text and to appeal to national parliaments not to ratify it". Mr Antonione replied that, even if it is not a matter of negotiation, the IGC cannot adopt a position of "total closure" toward government proposals. Nelly Maes (Greens/EFA) raised another fundamental question. For years before enlargement, it had always been maintained that enlargement could not harm deepening. Now, given the threat of the Parliament's budgetary powers being eroded, one has the right to wonder whether enlargement does in fact weaken deepening. It is necessary to demonstrate that enlargement is not a problem for deepening, Commissioner Verheugen agrees, adding that it is up to the future members to demonstrate that there is no need to worry (but specifying that the latter have nothing to do with the initiatives of the Ecofin Council on the EP's budgetary powers).