Brussels, 17/01/2006 (Agence Europe) - Debate at the European Parliament can sometimes take an alarming turn, with heckling, insults, provocations and even fist fights. During the vote on the Constitutional Treaty in January last year, for example, Polish nationalist MEPs from the Polish League of Families parties brandished banners comparing the European Union with a Stalinist regime. More recently, Italian Lega Nord MEP, Mario Borghesio, who calls for independence for the Padania region of Northern Italy, loudly heckled Italian President Carlo Ciampi during a visit to Strasbourg, whereupon non-aligned MEP Alessandra Mussolini tried to cover Borghesio with an Italian flag. The two came to blows. In December last year, a Greek member of the EP's Delegation for cooperation with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) fell out with a Macedonian ambassador visiting the European Parliament, saying FYROM did not even legally exist. Such incidents have been mushrooming in recent years, both in the plenary at the Strasbourg 'Hemicycle' building and in the corridors and meeting rooms (repeated interruptions and heckling of speakers, general disruption and din, brandishing of banners and posters, wearing T-shirts with political messages and physical fights), encouraged by the heterogeneity and political diversity at the European Parliament these days which has become difficult to manage since the last round of enlargement of the EU. The President of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, commissioned French Green MEP Gerard Onesta to write a report on how to beef up the rules of conduct for MEPs.
As the rapporteur explained to a handful of reporters, the Onesta Report on changes to be made to the rules of conduct for Members of the European Parliament aims to strike the right balance between promoting respect for the rules and sanctions on MEPs breaking them, in order to allow the European Parliament to be 'lively but dignified, dignified but lively'. Onesta has come up with suggestions based on a comparative study on the situation in national parliaments and the opinion of the EP's Legal Department. The changes he suggests would be made to the current Regulation, leaving the numbering of articles unchanged and aiming to allow freedom of speech for MEPs. This is not a code of conduct, explained Onesta, since the rules will be part of the general Regulation. But if serious events occur, there will be action that can be taken. He said that the rules to date were not very favourable to MEPs' fundamental freedoms because the EP's way of operating tended to kill off freedom. The main objective of Onesta's report is to boost MEPs' fundamental freedoms, he said. Freedom of speech is recognised but the report suggests differentiating between symbolic and silent expressions of the freedom of speech from events that hinder the proper functioning of the EP. Silent and symbolic expressions of freedom of speech would be allowed as long as they are not excessive and do not counteract mutual respect. The duration and recurrent nature of the disturbance should be taken into account and the chair of a meeting will have a series of measures at his or her disposal to be able to react immediately and effectively, said Onesta, explaining that in some cases, chairs will be able to make use of 'huissiers' (door staff) or even the European Parliament's security services (as is set out in the Regulation), Onesta's report explains that such staff would obviously need to be trained in how to intervene. The report notes that the MEPs also need better explanation of their rights and there would have to be an internal right to appeal against any penalties. The right to vote is safe - MEPs will be able to vote in plenary even if excluded from the meeting.
On sanctions to be applied in the event of gross misconduct, Onesta makes no changes to the measures set out in the Regulation. In the event of problems, following a warning, the chair or President can withdraw an MEP's right to speak and can exclude the MEP from the Chamber until the end of the meeting in question. Existing sanctions incorporated in the Onesta Report include warnings and exclusion. No changes have been made to how these would operate, but the maximum time they could last would, Onesta suggests, be extended to ten days with loss of parliamentary indemnity, rather than the current 5 day maximum period. A disciplinary procedure would be needed for the application of any sanction, with guaranteed right of defence. Onesta suggests the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament's political parties should be allowed to remove offending MEPs from internal office (like chairing delegations or EP committees). The Onesta Report recommends allowing the President of the European Parliament (rather than the plenary) to take measures, providing an internal appeals procedure to protect the right to defend oneself. Onesta argues that it should be the President rather than the plenary that has this right because there are too many big egos at play in the plenary, where the right to heckle prevails.
The Onesta Report is expected to be approved on Thursday following endorsement by the EP's Constitutional Affairs Committee on 15 December (by 19 to 2 with 3 abstentions).