Brussels, 13/03/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday, the European Parliament gave both a mixed and occasionally critical welcome to the “annual political strategy” for 2008 adopted by the Commission on 21 February. In the communication that Vice President Margot Wallström again presented on Tuesday to MEPs, the Commission lists the initiatives it intends to present next year to meet the challenges in the Barroso Commission's priority areas: prosperity; solidarity; security and external actions (EUROPE 9371). Energy and the fight against climate change are also at the centre of the European executive's strategic programme for 2008, as part of the long term implementation of the decisions taken by the European Council last week (EUROPE 9383).
Ingeborg Grässle (EPP-ED, Germany) criticised the fact that the Commission's strategy is “full of announcements but there is very little in the way of concrete projects” adding, “we can expect 2008 to be a disappointing year”. Ryszard Czarnecki from Poland was no less forthright about the 2008 strategy and said that it certainly contained “very noble declarations” but which were in fact, “virtual,” because they were often too vague and dissipated and lacked any real firm priorities. He said that “if everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority”. Kyösti Virrankoski (ALDE, Finland) also deplored the lack of real priorities and the “fragmentation” of the strategy for 2008, and “all the budgetary difficulties that it would lead to”. Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) also said that the Commission strategy failed to convince as it resembled a long catalogue “without any real priorities”. Even the key actions cited by the Commission are not very concrete, exclaimed the MEP. Diana Wallis (ALDE, United Kingdom) said that there were a lot of things to applaud in this strategy but that there were also shortcomings, such as the lack of transversal priorities . Istvan Szent-Ivanyi (ALDE) affirmed that the Commission's strategy was certainly “very ambitious” but did not include an “adequate budget” to attain the different policies planned. The Hungarian MEP asked whether the budget for 2008 should be coherent with the political programme. He also said that promotion of democracy and human rights should remain priorities of the Commission. The MEP added that it had to be pointed out that these factors did not have an important position in the Union's ambitious energy policy. Rebecca Harms asserted that energy policy and the fight against climate change were in themselves policies that could be welcomed. The German Green also explicitly welcomed the results of last week's European Council on these two subjects. However, she did say, “I am not sure whether the targets set out will be reached” mainly due to the “resistance” that appeared to pit Commissioner Günter Verheugen (industrial policy) against Commissioner Jacques Barrot (transport). Harms also said that she was mistrustful of President Barosso's new “energy revolution”. Robert Sturdy (EPP-ED, United Kingdom) explained that what was lacking in the 2008 strategy was an initiative in transatlantic dialogue. Alexander Radwan from Germany regretted that due to pressure from Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, the Commission had not included anything to regulate “hedge funds”. Sophie in't Veld (ALDE, Netherlands) attacked the Commission over fundamental rights. She explained that Barroso always speaks about a Europe of results but with regard to fundamental rights, he had not kept his promises made in 2004 and that there was nothing in this connection in the document for 2008 . “Talking about defending fundamental rights is not enough, they also need promoting” (in her reply, Margot Wallström strongly refutes this accusation, “no-one can doubt Mr Barosso's commitment or that of his Commission to fundamental rights”.
Other MEPs welcomed the work of the Commission. Alexander Stubb (EPP-ED) congratulated the Commission's work, in which there are “four priorities which are also mine for 2008”: the fight against climate change; resolution of the problem of the European Constitution; completion of the internal market (he told the Commission that it should “sell the four freedoms better, which should also be accompanied by a health policy for consumers”); enlargement (which he added was the most beautiful success story of European integration). His German colleague George Jarzembowski (EPP-ED) was also pleased with the Commission's strategy, particularly because it proposed a “good approach” to transport policy, a policy he claimed they had neglected. He also stressed that without an ambitious transport and infrastructure development policy, there would be no economic growth or trade. Andrew Duff (ALDE, United Kingdom) also underlined the positive side of the commission's document. He highlighted the need to submit it to a detailed debate, not only with the European Parliament but also with the national parliaments. He explained that this would enable the Commissioners, above all, to sell their policy to member states and for member states to sell it to their citizens.
./….Jan Andersson (PES, Sweden) thought that the Commission had the right approach on economics (Lisbon Strategy) but that it neglected the social chapter and the fight against discrimination. Catherine Guy-Quint (PES, France) deplored the fact that the Commission's strategy neglected the social chapter too much, as well as the importance of “social coherence”. She also said that the budget would not have enough room for manoeuvre when it came to implementing different policies.
Speaking on behalf of the Commission, Margot Wallström, summed up the controversial debate, “some people are asking the Commission to do more and others that it does less. The Commission itself, wants to do better”. Wallström also underscored the importance of improving dialogue between the EP and Commission on future strategic programmes. She said that this dialogue needed to be made more political and that it involved the political groups of the Parliament earlier. The vice president of the Commission also recognised that the link between political strategy and the budget should be strengthened because they both had to complement each other. (hb)