Triple challenge. Changing the allocation of seats in the European Parliament presents a triple challenge: a) the total number of MEPs has to be reduced (from 785 to 750), a change that will make some unhappy; b) the EP “holds the nap hand”, since it can speak about the arrangements with a clear majority; the Council will agree with whatever it decides; c) the review will then have to be ratified by national parliaments.
This lets us see just how delicate and complicated the task was of the two rapporteurs - Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France) and Adrian Severin (PES, Romania) - who were charged with finding the “magic formula”. The schedule is tight: the competent parliamentary committee will give its opinion on 2 October, and the vote in plenary session will take place on 10 or 11 October. Thereafter, it will be up to governments (which, as we have seen, are disposed not to amend what the EP decides). It is important to keep to the timetable, making sure that any jealousy or other petty considerations do not interfere with it. To my knowledge, only one valid objection has been raised about what the rapporteurs have come up with: why base the calculation of national populations on the number of “residents” without any reference to citizenship? Should not the number of citizens with the right to vote have been used? No doubt, Mr Lamassoure will have to answer questions on this in debate.
Apart from this one reservation, the proposals put forward by the two rapporteurs seem balanced and reasonable. Helmut Brüls forecast what would be brought forward in our newsletter No 9496 and reported the first debate among MEPs in newsletter No 9499. As for the member states, according to information received, two - Ireland and Italy - want adjustments brought to what has been proposed. Last week, at a press conference, Mr Lamassoure said that any call for amendment would have to be subject to the following principle: any MEP asking for an additional seat for his/her country will have to say from which other country this seat should come. Were this not to be the case, there could very well be a welter of requests.
Criteria. Mr Lamassoure set out, too, the criteria under which he worked:
- the EP is the largest of all the parliaments in the world with legislative responsibilities and real power. It works satisfactorily as it currently stands (with 785 MEPs), but the reduction in number and the ceiling are opportune. The new figure (750 MEPs) is, Mr Lamassoure says, an “absolute ceiling” even for the future;
- the main rules of the current review have already been set and the Parliament must abide by them. Thus, after the 2009 European elections, the overall number of MEPs will be 750; the ceiling for the most heavily populated country (Germany) will be 96 (compared with 99 currently) and the minimum number for the most sparsely populated member states will be 6 (rather than 5 as at present). Seats will be allocated according to the principle of “degressive proportionality”, for which no mathematical formula exists;
- within these rules, which the EP cannot alter, the two rapporteurs decided that no member states (apart from Germany) will have a lesser number of MEPs than that provided for in the Treaty of Nice. Compared with that treaty, taking account of demographic changes and re-allocating the three seats given up by Germany, the following changes are proposed: Spain +4; France, Sweden and Austria each +2; United Kingdom, Poland, Netherlands, Lithuania, Slovenia and Bulgaria each +1. For the other member states, there will be no change;
- the allocation of seats will necessarily have to be reviewed at later enlargements, but it is impossible to discuss this at the moment since the number and populations of the future member states are not known. Stable criteria will have to be defined, in order to avoid changing the rules at every accession. Responding to a question, Mr Lamassoure acknowledged that the possible accession of Turkey would cause upheaval, since, in the future EP, there would be more Turkish MEPs than any other.
Political assessment. The second rapporteur, Mr Severin, stressed that the balance struck took account of the fact that the European Parliament represents both states and citizens, whereas in the United States, for example, the lower Chamber represents the citizens and the upper Chamber the states. It makes no sense to criticise the proposed review by talking about states being winners or losers: if it makes the EP more legitimate and democratic, everyone is a winner. Moreover, no mathematical formula can calculate “degressive proportionality”; the assessment is based on political criteria. (F.R.)