Strasbourg, 26/09/2007 (Agence Europe) - Enrique Barón Crespo (PES, Spain), Elmar Brok (EPP-ED, Germany) and Andrew Duff (ALDE, United Kingdom) took stock of work under way at legal-expert level on the revised draft European Treaty. We are “highly critical” regarding provisions (under the new article 24) relative to the “transmission of confidential data” in the field of external relations, said Mr Brok, on the sidelines of the plenary session of the European Parliament on Wednesday 26 September. As it stands, this article allows the Council alone to define the rules in this field, with no possibility of involvement for the European Parliament. This is believed, in particular, to include the personal data sent by the EU to third countries in the framework of the fight against terrorism. “This article excludes all controls by the EP”, said Mr Brok, referring to the proposals made by the three MEPs to modify these provisions, without going into details. He went on to warn that this subject may “give rise to a considerable debate” in certain member states, which may risk damaging the ratification process for the future treaty.
Another cause of concern for the MEPs: the “opt out” clauses to be called for by the United Kingdom to exclude the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on its territory. “We have serious concerns” on these points, said Mr Duff. He reiterated “the fears of the majority of the member states and of the EP” that the United Kingdom may choose the “opt in” when legislative work is being launched in certain policies related to justice and home affairs and then, changing horses midstream, may end up deciding to apply its “opt out”. For his part, Mr Brok took the view that the United Kingdom had “got what it wanted” and should “not stop the rest from having a Charter of Fundamental Rights”. He takes the view that there is “no longer any reason to have a referendum” in the United Kingdom to ratify the future treaty, as this will entail “practically no transfer of sovereignty”.
On the “Ioannina compromise”, which Poland wishes to include in the future treaty (the EUROPE 9498), Mr Brok spoke of the “limits which the Poles may not cross”. He stated that he was nonetheless “surprised to note that no account had been taken of enlargement” on the division of advocates general within the European Court of Justice on the basis of nationality - another request made by Poland. The German Christian Democrat pleaded in favour of a re-balance in favour of the new member states. Pointing out that he himself had lived under a dictatorship, that of General Franco, Mr Baron Crespo wondered how the “Polish government (was going to) explain to its people how come (Poland) was excluded from (the application of) the Charter of Fundamental Rights”. On the other hand, however, the MEPs did not note the specific concerns on the concertina-ing between the legislative elections in Poland (scheduled for 21 October) and the home straight of negotiations on the revised European treaty.
Lastly, the MEPs welcomed action taken by the European Parliament which, as Mr Duff pointed out, has played an “active role” in the defence of its prerogatives and powers. “We have enjoyed considerable success”, he added, referring to “the concept of citizenship, which had practically disappeared in the first version of the treaty”. As for the clause on the right of citizens to communication on Europe called for by the Commission, this would have enjoyed “a certain amount of interest” on the part of the member states, according to the UK Liberal member. (mb)