Strasbourg, 24/05/2007 (Agence Europe) - Understood by some, criticised by others, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who, on Wednesday at the European Parliament, sketched out what he considered as the possible solutions to the impasse on Union reform (EUROPE 9431), received the most positive appraisal from the left. British Labour Party member, Richard Corbett, affirmed: “You were encouraging, you could have come and simply said, 'we have said no to the constitution' but you were prepared to compromise, you did not say that you wanted to throw everything away but indicated your willingness to negotiate on the substance, and I thank you for that”.
The president of the EPP/ED group, Joseph Daul, even spoke of a “broadly shared vision”. This comment provoked a few protests but he then explained that in his opinion one had to take “what was good in parts I and II” of the draft Constitutional Treaty. He believes, however, that according to Balkenende's line, they should say clearly what the Union can do and how it could resolve the institutional problems before contemplating further expansion.
Martin Schulz, the president of the Socialist group, pointed out that Balkenende had said that they needed to concentrate on what unites the EU27 rather than on what divides them. Schulz also indicated that Balkenende had also challenged the notion of certain symbols and functions, notably the idea of having a Union foreign affairs minister. Partly speaking in Dutch, Schulz said that he was, however, confident in the Dutch people, “a nation of sailors, who will find the right way”.
The president of the ALDE group, Graham Watson, affirmed that during the 17th century the Dutch had united their seven provinces, which explained the country's success story. Watson said that the draft Constitutional Treaty would not lead to a “superstate” but to “super people” and that the substance of the text had to be maintained. His compatriot Andrew Duff (ALDE) did not understand Mr Balkenende's concerns about the transfer of sovereignty. He then expressed concern about the possibility of national parliaments being able to block the Union's legislative process, which would constitute a “severe attack” on the Commission's right of initiative and the prerogatives of the Council and the EP. Duff said he was afraid that they would end up setting up a third chamber, which completely went against the simplification being sought and was an abuse of the principle of the separation of powers.
This concern was shared by Jean-Luc Dehaene (EPP/ED, Belgium), who agreed that national parliaments should be more involved but not if this meant setting up another institution. Dehaene also questioned the need to include enlargement criteria in the treaty and pointed out that the Court already ensured legal control.
Brian Crowley from Ireland and president of the UEN group said that the key words for Union reform were “consensus, compromise and cooperation”. On the other hand, he attacked the speech by Romano Prodi about a possible two-speed Europe, “with words worthy of George Bush”. Kathalijne Buitenweg (Greens/EFA) is Dutch but she did not agree with her prime minister, especially on the place of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (for her, it is in the Treaty itself). Speaking for the GUE/Nordic Left, her compatriot Erik Meijer, also of a different political grouping, encouraged Mr Balkenende and stated, “don't be intimidated by those who defend the text of the Constitution, many citizens in other countries would also have said 'no' if they had had the opportunity”.
Some MEPs focused on the symbols of the Union under threat: anthem and flag. Sylvia Kaufmann from Germany (GUE/NGL) protested, saying that every borough had the right to its own symbols and so why should this right be denied the Union. She added that citizens were not interested in disputes over flags, they wanted to know whether the Union was defending their rights. Johannes Voggenhuber was more vicious. The Austrian Green exclaimed, in a television programme that young Dutch people had affirmed that Europe was a free trade zone and that getting rid of the symbols would encourage them to think in this way, whereas European citizenship existed and the European Parliament was the supranational form of representation. (lg)