While I am writing these lines, the debate on the future of Europe is in full flow at the European Council and it is impossible to anticipate what the result will be. But one thing won't change: the position of the European Parliament as expressed by its president to the heads of state and government. All the different pundits acknowledge that the EP has gained prestige and authority, despite the weaknesses and shortcomings in the way the institutions generally function. At the same time, its powers have been clarified and enhanced and they will be still more so with the new treaty.
The president was very clear. Therefore we should be taking what Hans-Gert Pöttering said on Thursday evening at the European Council, as well as public opinion (because his text was immediately released), very seriously. The president clearly indicated what the EU considers imperative, despite the threat of a blockage in the negotiating process for the new treaty. After the beginning of his text, perhaps as an unavoidable concession to a certain European rhetoric, he avoided outlining any notion of what constituted an ideal or dream treaty. He admitted that the new treaty cannot be a constitution and that reality could not be ignored. At the same time, however, he listed what had to be safeguarded or even strengthened:
extension of decisions by qualified majority and co-decision of the Parliament/Council;
consolidation of the role of national parliaments without right of veto on EU legislation.
Parliaments have almost all indicated that they will not ask for this;
maintaining primacy of European law over national law;
legally binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
no further EU accession without more reforms. “I can affirm quite categorically on behalf of the Parliament that without the reforms included in the Constitutional Treaty, there will be no more new EU member states, with the exception of Croatia”;
merger of the three pillars, single legal personality for the EU, modifications to legal acts (“European laws”);
creation of the post of minister for European affairs. Whatever his title, this role will be to be both president of the European Council of Foreign Affairs and vice president of the Commission;
insertion into the new treaty of common actions for fighting climate change and “solidarity energy supplies”, objectives for which “public support is impressive”
In connection with the symbols, the position of Mr Pöttering is less explicit. He highlights their importance and meaning, and considers it “particularly disappointing” that they have to be scrapped (flag and anthem) but does not affirm how this measure would lead the EP to opposing a call for an IGC.
Poland and solidarity. Given that he is aware of what is at the centre of the summit debates, the president has spent an enormous amount of time working out how to tackle the problem of majority voting procedures at the Council. The EP considers that “rules on double majority are a pillar of European stability”. Every member state naturally has the right to express its wishes and put its positions on the table but “no country can impose on the other countries something they do not want”. Balance between institutions was debated at great length and decided on with maturity at the Convention (it represents a combination covering Parliament, Commission and Council). “A veto is an infringement to European solidarity”. If this is used without a real effort of conciliation, “it will separate nations and EU institutions from the obligation of solidarity”.
Pöttering made it quite clear what he was referring to: “Poland is today experiencing the value of European solidarity” in relation to its agricultural exports to Russia and energy supplies (he did not mention funding, which might have created the impression of blackmail). His conclusion: “Today, everyone is invited to demonstrate their solidarity with their partners and commit themselves to the path of understanding. Solidarity is not a one way street!”
Participation. Pöttering underlined as part of his conclusion that Parliament, “without claiming to be involved in all its decision-making…is determined to be involved and suitably represented at the intergovernmental conference at all levels of negotiations”, and that an agreement on this subject should precede EP consensus on arranging an IGC. Here is a Parliament that is aware of its rights and which has decided to get them respected.
(F.R.)