Brussels, 02/10/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 2 October, it was with a comfortable majority (17 votes for, 5 against and three abstentions) that the constitutional affairs committee of the European Parliament approved the report by Alain Lamassoure (EPP-ED, France) and Adrian Severin (PES, Romania) on how seats should be distributed at the EP after the 2009 European elections. This clear committee vote is expected to open the way for the text to be approved in plenary on 11 October and to be formally adopted by the EU heads of state and government during the Informal European Council in Lisbon, on 18-19 October.
The European Council in June had entrusted the Parliament with the task of putting forward a method based on the principle of “degressive proportionality” for assigning seats after the 2009 European elections when the EP, as foreseen in the future reform EU treaty, will only have 750 seats as opposed to the current 785. The Portuguese EU presidency has pointed out that, if a “large majority” of MEPs back the suggested method, the European Council will approve it as it is (unanimity being required) on the fringe of the IGC on the new treaty that should normally end in Lisbon on 19 October.
This “large majority” at the EP now seems acquired, as the constitutional affairs committee, despite several amending proposals, has kept the seat assignment breakdown suggested by rapporteurs unchanged. Compared to the situation foreseen in the Nice Treaty, which gives a ceiling for the number of seats at 736 as of 2009, the constitutional affairs committee therefore supports the following changes for a 750-member House: Germany: - 3 seats (in the new treaty, the ceiling is set at 96 seats instead of 99 in the Nice Treaty); - France: +2 seats (74 compared to 72); - United Kingdom: +1 (73 instead of 72); - Italy: unchanged (72); - Spain: +4 (54 instead of 50); - Poland: +1 (51 instead of 50); - Romania: unchanged (33); - Netherlands: +1 (26 instead of 25); - Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Hungary and Czech Republic: unchanged (all 22); - Sweden: +2 (20 instead of 18); - Austria: +2 (19 instead of 17); - Bulgaria: +1 (18 instead of 17); - Denmark, Slovakia, Finland: unchanged (all 13); - Ireland and Lithuania: unchanged (all 12); - Latvia: +1 (9 instead of 8); - Slovenia: +1 (8 instead of 7); - Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg: unchanged (all 6); - Malta: +1 (6 instead of 5).
Although no-one has challenged the principle of “degressive proportionality”, several MEPs have challenged the interpretation given to it by rapporteurs. Thus, the members of the German CDU/CSU, headed by Ingo Friedrich, suggested assigning six seats to each member state (which would already make a total of 162) and then sharing out the remaining 588 seats according to the principle of simple proportionality. This would be “too proportional but not degressive enough” granting too much weight to the large countries, Mr Lamassoure told the press on Tuesday. The authors of this amendment were able to be persuaded that their proposal ran “counter to the spirit and letter of the treaty” (which imposes degressive proportionality) and that they have therefore discarded it, Mr Lamassoure was pleased to note. Another amendment, put forward by Jens Peter Bonde of Denmark (IND/DEM), which aimed at seriously diminishing the weight of the large countries (Germany in particular) to the benefit of the smaller countries, was considered “too degressive and not proportional enough” by the rapporteurs, and also rejected.
A more stable system for the future. The rapporteurs admit that their seat assignment breakdown is not made to “last for ever”. But, as Mr Lamassoure stresses, it is probably the only method today that all member states find acceptable for the 2009 elections. The EP committee therefore requests that the breakdown proposed be revised, well before the beginning of the 2014-2019 legislature, in order to set up an “objective and equitable” system for seat assignment. This should take into account changes in the size of the population and any EU enlargements, and avoid traditional haggling and bargaining between member states. MEPs also suggest that, during future enlargements, the ceiling for seats could temporarily exceed 750, as was the case when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU.
Citizens or residents? Several Italian MEPs, supported by their government, have requested that the criterion for calculating the number of seats for each member state should no longer - as has always been the case since the very beginning of the European Community - be the population (number of residents) but the umber of “citizens”, including those who reside in another member state. The rapporteurs defend the status quo “as it is not up to us to define new criteria”. Furthermore, as Mr Lamassoure commented: “There is no proposal on the table to change the system which has been applied since the Treaty of Rome”. The question may, however, be discussed in the future and “we are willing to do so”, stress the rapporteurs. The parliamentary committee therefore suggests that in the future, it should look at how technically, politically and legally feasible it is to replace the number of “residents” by the number of “citizens”. (hb)