Brussels, 11/07/2007 (Agence Europe) - Adopting a report on Wednesday by Jo Leinen (PES, Germany) by 526 to 138 with 26 abstentions, the European Parliament backed the idea of an intergovernmental conference (IGC) on reform of the treaties. The EP welcomed the fact that the mandate preserves most of the Constitutional Treaty but confirmed the reservations already expressed (see EUROPE 9465). The MEPs regretted that the mandate amounts to abandoning some important factors, which it listed, on which there had been agreement during the 2004 IGC. Most of the MEPs feel this compromise is the price that has to be paid if progress is to be made but many criticisms were voiced during the debate on the outcome and functioning of the June European Council, which some fear will lead to an illegible treaty.
The European Council's text was the best possible outcome, said Portuguese European Affairs Minister Manuel Lobo Antunes, adding that he thought there was consensus at the EP on the aim of arriving at a treaty on this basis, and according to the planned timetable. He hoped the EP would be fully associated with the IGC's work and be permanently consulted (in addition to the seats for 3 MEPs at the IGC - Elmar Brok, Enrique Baron Crespo and Andrew Duff). Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström said she agreed with the positive assessment in the European Parliament's report, adding that the mandate struck a fine balance among ambition and political realism, and despite the rejection of some measures agreed to by the 2004 IGC she said it would provide a solid, institutional, political basis.
The rapporteur said results were needed in October, adding that this would be possible because the mandate was very detailed and documents were in print. Jo Leinen urged everyone to respect the commitments made in Brussels and asked the Portuguese presidency to take a firm line and not let lack of discipline rule the day. The lost measures were the price that had to be paid, he said, although the EP remains concerned about the exceptions to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Leinen said the Portuguese presidency would have to act openly, and called for all the discussion documents to be published, and a consolidated version of the text to be made available at the end of the IGC.
Wanting progress to be made, Inigo Mendez de Vigo (EPP-ED, Spain) said he was stunned at the climate of mistrust that surrounded the recent European Council meeting and called for people to get down to work and reach a good agreement. Richard Corbett (PES, UK) said there was now a new text but it was the amendments (dropping the name 'Foreign Minister', the primacy of EU law, symbols, etc) that would make it possible for member states to ratify it. Critical, Andrew Duff (ALDE, UK) hoped that the footnotes would not pollute the entire body of the EU. The British get-out clause for the Charter of Fundamental Rights creates a several tier Council which Duff said was 'intolerable' for the EP, adding that it would now be necessary to fight against people's views that it was all a huge exercise to hide what was going on, and allow some countries to wriggle out of having to hold referendums.
Konrad Szymanski (UEN, Poland) said the mandate was flexible and realistic, but Johannes Voggenhuber (Greens-EFA, Austria) said he was not certain that realism had won the day. He said he wanted a clear text but governments want a coded text with figures that citizens could not understand. He said the UK's opt-out from the Charter had not saved the EU but had scrapped a central and vital part of the treaty. His views were shared by Francis Wurtz (GUE-NGL, France) who feared that the cosmetic changes that had been made would be used to justify a cowardly dropping of referendums in the member states. He said the GUE-NGL group would be carrying out a huge campaign to inform people about what was at stake with the new treaty. 'A simplified treaty? You must be joking!' fulminated Gérard Onesta (Greens-EFA, France), adding that the mandate meant that policies that had been on the table were now on the floor and there were still plenty of potential deadlocks.
We want a treaty that is useful to citizens, explained Lobo Antunes. The Portuguese presidency would of course act openly with the EU institutions and public opinion, and would be hugely disciplined. Wallström called for a slightly more nuanced response that was somewhere between the super-optimists and the super-pessimists. She added that starting to point fingers at other people would not help anyone. The Commission doesn't like opt-outs, she said, describing them as also being 'opt-ins', but asked what the real political choice had been, namely either a weak, non-binding text or a binding text for the institutions with this opt-out ensuring that the Charter could be kept. She said the choice that had been made was the best solution and pointed out the contradictions in some MEPs' views because they seemed to believe that parliamentary ratification was less legitimate than referendums. Wallstrom said the Commission would very soon be unveiling an action plan which would allow open, democratic ratification. (ab)