Brussels, 05/12/2006 (Agence Europe) - The European Constitution, the future funding of the EU, energy policy, enlargement and the role of the EU in preventing international conflicts were the main issues debated at the parliamentary meeting on the future of Europe, entitled “From Reflection to Action”. Several hundred MEPs and national MPs from the Member States, candidate countries (Turkey, Croatia and FYR Macedonia) and Norway attended this meeting in Brussels. The Presidents of the three EU institutions also took part in the debate: Matti Vanhanen for the Council, José Manuel Barroso for the Commission and Josep Borrell for the European Parliament.
European Constitution. There was a strong feeling in favour of the retention of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty, and against the idea of cutting some parts from the text or reducing it to a “mini-Treaty”. Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen, at the very moment his country was voting to ratify the Constitution (see related article) spoke for the retention of the entire text. “The Constitutional Treaty is a balanced whole which Europe needs … The text must not be cut up into pieces,” he said. “The right road is certainly not in fragmenting the text,” he went on, stressing in, particular that there had to be a clear and precise definition and limitation of Member States' competences and those of the EU. For this, it was important to retain Part III of the Draft Constitution which some would like to see reduced or removed completely from the text, he said.
The Finnish ratification was announced at the conference by the leader of the Finnish parliament Paavo Lipponen, who was co-chairing the conference with Mr Borrell, and was applauded by a very large majority of parliamentarians. Mr Lipponen also felt that the draft Constitution “should be kept in one piece”. Despite the calls of several parliamentarians, Mr Vanhanen refused to report on the “confidential” consultations on the Constitution in which he is engaged with his counterparts from the other Member States, prior to the report he will deliver at the December European Council. José Manuel Barroso also spoke for the Constitution, “essential for a Union that is more transparent, more efficient, more democratic and more present in the world”. The Finnish vote was “excellent” news which “shows that out project is still alive”, he said, calling, however, for too much responsibility not to be put on the German Presidency, because its task of preparing a roadmap and a timetable for the continuation of the Constitutional process by June 2007 would be an extremely difficult one.
Mr Barroso also appealed to MEPs and national MPs to defend the constitutional project in order to bolster support for it among their citizens. “Now is the time to show political conviction. Your voice must be heard!”, he said. The Berlin Declaration of March 2007 (50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome) will give the three institutions (Council, Commission, EP) a chance to describe their vision for the future of Europe. “I hope Member States will have the courage to say that they are behind a stronger and more united Europe”? he said. Alain Lamassoure, French MEP (EPP-ED), also felt that the constitutional treaty should be preserved as far as possible. Mr Lamassoure preferred the middle way between those who suggest a mini-treaty and those who defend simply sticking to the current text.
He ventured into the field of clothing to illustrate his comment saying: “If we dressed up our beautiful Europe in a G-string it might seem obscene but Father Christmas' thick overcoat would be just as exaggerated. There is no doubt room for compromise”, he said. Mr Vanhanen responded to Mr Lamassoure's remark with: “G-string or Father Christmas' overcoat? The Union doesn't need either - what it needs are working clothes” that will allow it to achieve the results that citizens want. The Chairman of the Committee on European Affairs at the Italian Senate, Andrea Manzella (PES), sounded a note of warning about “cherry-picking” in the current text and proposed including an additional protocol for interpreting and specifying certain controversial elements. German MEP Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE) also took a stance against breaking up the text, arguing that the current Part III contains many provisions relating to social policy, which something that the citizens are attached to. German MEP Alexander Lambsdorff, on the other hand, said the substance of the current text cannot be maintained unless there is a change of form and presentation. The chairman of the EU delegation from the French Senate, Hubert Haenel (EPP), stressed the need to restore a link between the amendments to the Treaties and the policy projects. He said: “Public opinion is frustrated. Before, changes made to the treaties were always linked to specific political projects. Now, the EU only focuses on its own functioning. We have had three treaties in 7 years. Presenting the institutions as the central element is not good!”. The French Senator said the EU should give a better definition of and explain its projects and political ambitions to citizens, mainly when it is a matter of creating an area of justice/freedom/security, energy policy, foreign policy, economic and social governance, etc. “The institutions must not be separated from the EU's political project”, and the constitutional treaty must not be unpicked, Mr Haenel concluded. EP President Josep Borrell launched a call for compromise, saying: “We cannot go on for ever discussing our internal functioning, while the world outside is on the move. We are more spectators than players. Let us give Europe the instruments and institutions that it needs so that it can undertake the policies required, otherwise it could die from its own weight. We cannot wait another five years!” Swedish MEP Staffan Danielsson asked whether the denomination “Constitution” was truly necessary or whether it would be better to use the name “'Treaty”. Several MEPs expressed their discontent about the way the EU continues the constitutional process despite the French and Dutch “no-votes”. Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM), for example, asked why Finland has decided to ratify a Constitution that is “already dead” against the opinion expressed by the Finnish population which is “largely opposed to the text”. Finnish MEP Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) believes the text would have been rejected if a referendum had been held in Finland.
Future EU financing. French MEP Alain Lamassoure (EPP-ED) chaired a joint working group of European and national parliamentarians that drafted a report on reform of the European budget's own resources. The range of opinions stated is very broad, Mr Lamassoure explained, adding: “Nevertheless, some common points emerged on the diagnosis, the calendar and on some guiding principles”. When it comes to diagnosis, there is consensus on “the very serious defects of the current system of resources of the EU” and on “its consequences regarding the impossibility to finance major European policies”. The revision clause laid down in the last interinstitutional agreement must thus be made profitable to give the Union a financing system that is simple, clear, transparent, equitable, and subject to perfectly democratic procedures. “The general wish is to manage a political agreement in 2008-2009, for a phased introduction of the reform, at the latest from 2014”, the report by Mr Lamassoure notes. Concerning the guidelines that are to be a frame for this reform, those most frequently quoted are: - the need to have resolved the EU's institutional question before beginning the in-depth discussion on the financing of Community policies; - maintenance of the discipline to which the European budget is subject (obligation of budgetary balance, ceiling of the total amount, framework for the annual budget); - respect of the tax sovereignty of Member States. There was “quasi unanimous” rejection of the idea that a new tax directly allocated to the EU should be imposed (“European tax”) Some do not exclude this solution in the long term but almost all believe it is premature; - tax neutrality or “principle of constancy” (the transfer of a policy to the European level should not increase the total public expenditure, nor the tax pressure); - and the maintenance of the level of magnitude of the budget of the Union. “Opinions here are much contrasted”, Mr Lamassoure states - some insisting on the economic insignificance of a budget limited to 1% of GNI, others recommending the search for initial economies.
But the margin between the current budget level for 2007 (0.99% and the authorised ceiling (1.27%) makes this debate theoretical for the next ten years”, notes the report; the political link between reform of resources and revision of spending; using national taxes whose basis has already been harmonised or which can be. Among national taxes that exist and most often mentioned, are VAT and taxes linked to the environment; the need to gradually implement any reform. The report also mentions the fact that MEPs should maintain the “GNI resource” at least for a certain time but on the condition of simplifying it considerably to make it transparent and fair. Some MEPs mentioned the possibility of taxing financial flows, notes the report. Portugal, during its presidency in the second half of 2007, will be organising an inter-parliamentary meeting on the only subject of the EU's future funding.
Enlargement/Turkey. Matti Vanhanen said that the enlargement process has to continue and remain “open” and should not impose “additional conditions” on candidate countries. The situation with Turkey is “difficult”: the Finnish presidency wanted to find a solution to the problem of the EU/Turkey customs union and the opening up of trade links between the North of Cyprus but negotiations failed. The Commission's 8 November recommendation, which is the direct consequence of this failure, constitutes a “good basis of the discussion” for a decision on Turkey during the General Affairs Council on 11 December. Vanhanen underlined that the European Council on 14-15 December will not be talking about Turkey but he did point out that Turkey's accession remained an objective of the process that had begun, even if the train was slowing down, the objective remained the same. René van der Linden, the chairman of the European affaires committee of the Dutch parliament, argued for more calm and patience on Turkey. “We are talking about possible accession in 10, 15 or even 20 years' time. Time will settle a lot of things. We have to avoid a crash with Turkey now”.
EU energy policy/Prevention of conflict. Two further reports have been drafted by parliamentarians on these two issues. EUROPE will return to them. (hb)