The Presidency confirms it. Commenting on the outcome of last week's European Council (see this column in edition 9330), I said that heads of state and government had drawn up a real “action plan” for the EU's immigration policy. Did I overstate things a little? In fact, the Summit did not manage to smooth out differences on how the “passerelle clause” should apply. This clause would have transferred police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters from the third (inter-governmental) pillar to the first (Community). This would have meant Community decision-making procedures being introduced: the Commission's right of initiative, qualified majority voting in the Council, Parliament-Council co-decision. Despite failure up until now, the briefing which the Finnish Prime Minister, in his capacity as President of the European Council, gave to the European Parliament at the start of the week, and the reactions of most of the political groups in the EP have confirmed that we are dealing, effectively, with an action plan which should lead to a European policy on immigration and cooperation with the third countries concerned.
Mr Vanhanen did not hide the institutional difficulty, mentioned above from MEPs: on the contrary, he dealt with it frankly and with great determination. He explained that the requirement for unanimity was preventing any real progress in police and legal cooperation, despite the urgent call from citizens who want the EU to show greater effectiveness and dynamism in protecting their security and in combating crime (which, itself, is no respecter of national borders). Unfortunately, several Member States refuse to apply the “passerelle clause”, so this avenue is closed off for the moment. Nonetheless, Mr Vanhanen said, despite this impasse, “the European Council sent an unequivocal message that more effective decision-making on justice and home affairs is important, along with the principles set out in the Constitutional Treaty, and that means switching to qualified majority voting”. He added, “That is something of a breakthrough and we should welcome it. Future Presidencies should honour that decision”.
For qualified majority voting. Politically, Finland's stance is strong and courageous. But it will not be easy to bring it to reality. If the “passerelle clause” is linked to the Constitutional Treaty”, it will be at least 2009 before it can be applied, and, if it is to be used immediately, unanimous agreement is needed to bring this about. It is significant that, at this point in his speech, Mr Vanhanen added a passionate appeal for the extension of qualified majority voting in general: “… if there was one thing that I could change in the Union here and now - speaking as President of the Council - it would be to increase the number of decisions taken by qualified majority. It is without doubt the most effective, the fairest and indeed the best way of making good decisions. The unanimity requirement does not serve European common interest”.
2007 programme. In spite of the failure of the “passerelle clause”, the Council set out the key content of an immigration policy. Mr Vanhanen reminded MEPs that, at the Lahti informal Summit, illegal immigration was discussed, in a spirit of solidarity with Mediterranean Member States, which were under great pressure. Last week, the European Council set out a “comprehensive approach” covering legal and illegal immigration, given that immigration is not simply a matter of better border supervision. The key elements are the situation in the emigrants' country of departure, transit towards Europe and an orderly immigration policy. Taking account of these different aspects, heads of state and government set out the broad lines for future action, largely picking up on guidelines or proposals the European Commission had made over the previous months, under the responsibility of Vice-President Franco Frattini. The Summit conclusions (published in No 2457 of our EUROPE Documents series) show the measures which will have to be taken during the course of 2007, while stressing that it is “difficult to respond to expectations within the framework of existing decision-making procedures”. This last phrase allowed Mr Vanhanen to announce that the forthcoming Presidency would have to deal with the paralysing unanimity requirement.
The German Presidency has announced that the first informal session of its six-month period of tenure (in Dresden on 14, 15 and 16 January) would bring together ministers for justice and the internal market, under whose responsibility immigration and judicial and police cooperation fall. It is an encouraging sign.
(F.R.)