The role of the president. Rotation of the European Parliament presidency (from a president out of the Socialist Group to a president from the EPP) will not essentially change the course of this function. Presidents-in-office must represent the whole Assembly and not just the majority that elected them to the post. This, you will say, is quite natural. But it is not always the case in national parliaments, where presidents sometimes take “partisan” positions. I cannot remember a single comment by Josep Borrell on the subject of his impartiality and, during the election of Hans-Gert Pöttering, the presidents of all the political groups put full trust in him on this point, even those who openly expressed different views on the construction of Europe (as did Francis Würtz on behalf of the United Left).
During his presidency, Josep Borrell took care not to express certain personal convictions when he knew these would not be shared by a majority in Parliament, but brought them up to the surface again when he left his presidential office. One example of this was his immediate and strong support for binding European minimum rates of corporate taxation, when, in his capacity as president, he kept within the notion of harmonised tax base. Hans-Gert Pöttering immediately adopted similar behaviour by stating that he would no longer call for the term “Christian values” to be included in the constitutional treaty. This had been something he had fought for as president of the EPP group, but, as president of the EP, he will no longer do so (approving a constitutional treaty that leaves such terms aside). Such examples, albeit small, show a state of mind and sense of responsibility that is welcome when helping to affirm the importance and the significance of the Parliament during this difficult period in Europe's institutional functioning.
Conception and results. Mr Borrell had stated how he perceived the EP presidency in a speech delivered in November 2006 in Madrid (at the Real Instituto Elcano). He said: “The president of the European Parliament is neither a Head of Government nor the leader of a parliamentary majority. S/he is an organiser of ideas, a promoter of initiatives, a person who seeks consensus and the spokesperson for the institution. S/he is not elected on the basis of a political programme”. Borrell then went on to describe the institutional results of his presidency (including the definition of the statute of MEPs, an issue that has been on the table for thirty years) as well as the role of the EP regarding, in particular, the investiture of the Commission and the pursuit of the “better regulation” objective. He thus showed that “the daily lives of Europeans can be improved and their rights strengthened” through parliamentary action. His examples went beyond the oft-cited “services” directive and the regulation on chemical substances. He spoke of several cases when parliamentary action has allowed changes or improvements to projects or guidelines, to the citizens' advantage: - protection of air passengers' personal data (the Court of Justice ruled in favour of the EP against the Commission and Council), the duration for retention of personal data by telecommunication companies (the Council had foreseen up to 10 years but the solution adopted was 6 months to 2 years), the legislation on the driving time for road hauliers, the ban on phtalates in toys, and the quality of bathing water. One could mention many others. Mr Borrell gives the same political importance to Parliament's rejection of three Commission proposals which it felt were inappropriate, concerning port services, rail freight services and animal traps.
The former president was also adamant about what he called “parliamentary diplomacy”, that is, the participation of the EP in Europe's diplomatic action, citing: - the observation of electoral processes in third countries (31 missions in 24 countries), the awarding of the Sakharov Prize with its positive consequences regarding respect of human rights, and the slow but gradual task of making Europe's role understood in a number of large countries such as China and India “that do not know the EU but rather some of its Member States”. Everywhere, the EP strengthens the role of Europe, by contributing to making it a “political player” and by preventing it from “sacrificing human rights on the altar of economic cooperation”.
The EP and national parliaments. A last aspect of Josep Borrell's idea of Europe deserves, I feel, a mention: - his position on the controversial question of relations between “representative democracy” (founded on representatives being elected by universal suffrage) and “participatory democracy” (founded on representatives of social and economic categories and non-governmental organisations). He can be quoted: “You can go on discussing the crisis of representative democracy for ever. It is true that it does have real faults from certain points of view and yet could it be replaced with a purely participatory democracy? Certainly not”. The voice of sector-specific organisations must be heard and must be taken into account but, when all is said and done, the synthesis must be made by those who represent all categories. On the subject of relations between the EP and the national parliaments, he said: “The further the EU seems from our fellow citizens, the more doubt they have about its future, and the more national parliaments and the European Parliament must work together. They are not rivals - they are partners”. They must also, and especially, “reflect together” on a solution to the constitutional crisis. On other subjects, joint working groups have been set up, mainly on the future of “own resources” for funding the EU, a subject that must move beyond the phase of “petty squabbling” between Member States in order to give way to reflection on the road that will make it possible to “give Europe the means to meet its ambitions”. At this point, national parliaments obviously have an essential role to play.
An impressive background. It is now up to Hans-Gert Pöttering to take up the legacy left to him. He has an incomparable knowledge of the way the European Union works in general and of its Parliament in particular - having been an MEP since 1979! During seven and a half years he headed the EPP/ED Group and was successful in making it the most powerful group. He now has two and a half years in which to reach the goals that he is expected to specify on 13 February during a solemn session attended by all the presidents of the European Parliament's history. During the term of office of EU Presidency that is about to begin, he will have Angela Merkel, the president of the European Council, before him. They share the same nationality and belong to the same political colour, but the importance of this coincidence should not be exaggerated as Mr Pöttering is no longer a party man but represents the EP as a whole, and Ms Merkel heads a coalition with the Socialists at national level.
During his first press conference as president last week in Strasbourg, Mr Pöttering anticipated without surprise a number of essential objectives (see Mathieu Bion's account in our bulletin No 93435). I would like to underline three points: a) On the subject of the constitutional treaty, Mr Pöttering considers one must keep the substance of the current draft, which does not come as a surprise as the Parliament has always voted along these lines. b) He attributes priority importance to solidarity between the peoples of the EU, citing by way of example the “necessary solidarity” with Poland in the energy sector. c) He will seek to give the press and other information media an image of Europe that has its failings and its shortcomings but also its achievements (Ms Merkel had also stressed with great effectiveness the positive aspects of Europe, and I intend to come back to what she said on this).
According to the results of polls among his colleagues, even when the name of the respondent remained confidential, it appears that, in general, MEPs appreciate his attitude (“he knows how to keep smiling and kind even when he shows disapproval”) and his ability to seek and define compromises. Some would reproach him for having avoided, within the EPP-ED Group under his chairmanship, the substantive debate on the fundamental differences with British Conservatives and “Berlusconites”, but this was in line with his aim to have the largest parliamentary group, and it is a trait of character that could be desirable for “the prototype of a good EP president” as “he knows how to manage different opinions”. His “European convictions”, known to all, are considered fundamental.
The surprise. Alongside the two presidents, the old and the new, a third person has drawn the attention of the media: Monica Frassoni, the candidate that gained the highest number of votes after the winner: 145 MEPs voted for her, more than three times the number of members in her group (Greens/EFA), who total 42. This goes to show how much sympathy and confidence there is surrounding her name.
The fact that she did not win a sufficient majority to be elected holds some advantages for her as it allows her to present and defend “minority” ideas. I have come up with three such ideas from her speech of candidature in Strasbourg: a) She is opposed to the discussion on how to break the constitutional deadlock being entrusted to an IGC (Intergovernmental Conference) that would produce an “eternal cut-price compromise” behind closed doors. b) The question of the Parliament's seat must be discussed within the EP itself while “the major political groups continue to elude all discussion on this matter that is important for the credibility of our institution. Whatever the outcome, we must take a clear position or at least discuss it”. c) The internal EP reforms being studied must be unblocked to ensure that “the EP personnel remains autonomous compared to the political currents” by reversing the trend that leads to “an increasingly political colouring of the administration and a distribution of posts between the EPP and PES groups only”. Monica Frassoni plans to devote her efforts to “building a coalition for change” in order to avoid the “risk of seeing Parliament become a place that is too calm and too obedient”. To fulfil such ambitions, it is perhaps preferable not to be president …. (F.R.)