Brussels, 15/06/2006 (Agence Europe) - Speaking at the opening of the European Council on Thursday afternoon, the president of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, clearly expressed regret that the time taken up in discussing the future of Europe after the French and Dutch rejection of the European Constitution has not yet provided any answers. He also regretted that the Heads of State and Government seemed to be moving, on Friday, towards extension of the reflection period but without any limit in time, that they are now no more ready than before to use the “bridges” foreseen in the treaties in force to allow progress in fields such as immigration or data protection, and that they had taken the Agency for Fundamental Rights off the agenda. He started by explaining that the “institutions are working normally on a daily basis. Business as usual for usual business. But problems regarding the size, legitimacy and effectiveness of the EU are more serious today than the day after the Nice Treaty was signed. (…) We are not succumbing to the ambient pessimism by admitting this”. When it comes to the Constitution, he told his discussion partners that the ratification process is on track “but the number of ratifications is not in the twenties. Several Member States, probably more than three, who have not yet done so, do not seem more decided to ratify. And we know that neither France nor the Netherlands will vote the same text through, either before or after their next elections (…). You are going to decide to extend the reflection period, without imposing a time limit”, while the Parliament is calling for a solution before the European elections in 2009 (EUROPE 9211). What have we done in a year?, wondered Mr Borrell, who noted that the debate had been rich, that it had been about globalisation (a threat for 47% of Europeans), enlargement, immigration, energy, terrorism, but that “we have heard little criticism of the institutional dimension of the Constitutional Treaty”. He said, “almost all that we have said or heard during this year of reflection had already been written in the Laeken declaration of December 2001, which was behind the Constitutional Treaty”. Parliament was certain that the Treaty of Nice “does not allow the enlargement process to continue”, he said too, going on, “Today, Europe is a world in miniature. With differences in income between regions that go from 1 to 20. Reaching unanimous agreements is becoming more and more difficult. Decision-making rules badly suited to the number of Member States lead to inefficiency. Our institutional system has to be reformed to avoid there being each time more Europeans and less Europe”. According to Parliament the ratification process had to continue, said Mr Borrell, noting, “unanimity is necessary, but this is not the same thing if there are two or three or more or less than five countries that have not ratified”. On the Europe of projects, supported in particular by Mr Barroso, Mr Borrell commented, “We cannot do any more with what we have,” but, as Mr Barroso acknowledged, “the Europe of projects is not an alternative to the project for Europe”.
Whatever the final version of the Constitutional Treaty, it should incorporate the parliamentary dimension which had recently developed, argued Mr Borrell. As for a new “Declaration of Messina” for the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, he said, “re-reading it one is astonished by the depth of its political ambition. It proposed a common energy policy, spoke about the harmonisation of social policies and common rules on the length of working time. Could we today subscribe to the proposals of yesterday's Six?”
Among the current affairs issues worrying citizens, Mr Borrell pointed to the question of immigration: Tampere, where “we really only progressed on the fight against illegal immigration”, noting that “the unanimity rule blocked a decision being taken”. In the area of police and judicial cooperation on penal matters, Borrell deplored the fact that the “inter-governmental method is blocking us” and pointed out that the treaties were in force that included “bridging clauses” that allowed for them to move from the inter-governmental to the Community method. “Parliament proposed using this possibility, and several Member States and the Commission is supporting it, I therefore am inviting you to approve it”, he declared to the Heads of State and governments, explaining that this would not mean early implementation of the Constitutional treaty but of using provisions they had available. He said that if they had used the bridging clauses to go to the third pillar, they would have been able to prevent the situation created by the Court of Justice over-ruling the agreement with the USA on the transmission of personal data on airline passengers. He called on the institutions to work together on this affair and regretted that, “the theme of the Agency for Fundamental Rights has been withdrawn from today's agenda”.