No connection. As I write these lines, the Lisbon European Council has not yet started debating political approval of the new European Treaty. It is perfectly possible, likely even, that the approval will not be accompanied by a 'decision' on the allocation of seats at the European Parliament, for three reasons - a) there is no legal connection between the two acts; b) the Italian government has confirmed its opposition to the allocation currently under discussion; and c) at the EP itself, the majority of MEPs approve the allocation but a considerable number voted 'no' or abstained.
In my view, the first of these three points is the most important. In Italy, the media and a handful of politicians are sowing seeds of confusion about the two issues, saying that Italy would oppose the new treaty if it does not get its way over the composition of the EP. A country whose president is Giorgio Napolitano and whose prime minister is a former president of the European Commission vetoing the treaty on relaunching the EU? An aberration. It is of course disturbing to read on the front page of one of Italy's leading broadsheets that 'Italy might be forced to use its veto at the next summit, thereby blocking the launch of the new treaty'. Luckily, the truth is nothing of the sort. What Italy is calling for is for the distinction between approval of the new treaty by the IGC (intergovernmental conference) and the 'decision' by the European Council on the allocation of seats at the EP to be respected. Whichever way you look at it, they are two separate acts. The IGC is an intergovernmental structure; its results are subject to ratification by national parliaments. The new treaty fixes the maximum number of MEPs (750), the minimum (6) and maximum (96) number of seats for each member state, and a 'sliding scale of proportionality'. The actual number of seats for each country, however, is decided by the European Council by a unanimous vote, with the consent of the European Parliament.
Why the anger? Disagreeing with the 'Lamassoure formula', Italy is calling for the Council's decision to be postponed; and in my opinion the decision is not urgent and prior reflection is required. People who don't want the decision postponed argue that a) the Portuguese presidency sees political agreement from the IGC and the Council's decision as a unit; and b) the Council has pledged to accept the solution the EP approves by a clear majority vote. The first desire is understandable - the presidency has the ambition of achieving all the tasks conferred upon it. Understandable yes, compulsory no.
On the second issue, the Council must not go back on its word. It should not intervene if Parliament makes a clear choice. But has it made a clear choice? In fact, if you take account of the no votes, the abstentions and the absentees, the approved solution is backed by less than half of all MEPs. The no votes represent more than twice the number of MEPs of Italian nationality, indicating that more than one member state has doubts. The debate at the General Affairs Council on Monday, moreover, showed that various ministers also have reservations.
Different 'categories' of member states are a thing of the past. In my opinion, Italy's position would be unjustified and unacceptable if it were based on a desire for Italy to keep the same number of MEPs as France and the United Kingdom. The dividing up of member states into different categories (small, medium and large) is a thing of the past. Even France has abandoned its traditional equality with Germany. Unfortunately, some of the Italian media are still referring to the principle of equality with France and the United Kingdom. Fortunately the government is not talking about this (or has stopped talking about it). The government is talking about a question of principle - the number of MEPs from each nationality should not be decided by the number of inhabitants (the criterion on which the Lamassoure formula is based), but on the number of 'citizens' who are entitled to vote (or who will be entitled to vote when they reach voting age). Now Parliament itself is calling for the technical and political feasibility to be explored of replacing calculations based on the number of inhabitants by calculations based on the number of European citizens. Mr Lamassoure said he backed the idea of studying the question but feels it is too complex to be completed ahead of the 2009 European elections and this reform idea should be considered for the 2014 elections instead. Italy, however, believes it is possible to do the research ahead of the next European elections.
Conclusion: the disagreement which could delay the Council's 'decision' on allocation of seats at the EP should not have any bearing whatsoever on political approval of the reform treaty in Lisbon this Friday. (F.R.)