Strasbourg, 23/10/2007 (Agence Europe) - During Tuesday's debate in the European Parliament on the Lisbon summit, a large majority of MEPs welcomed the agreement on the new EU Reform Treaty (see EUROPE 9527). Most hope that the end of the institutional debate - which has been going on since 2001 - will now allow the EU to address the “real challenges”, in particular the socio-economic and environmental issues related to globalisation. Nonetheless, there were also “regrets” to be heard in the Chamber in Strasbourg: from those who were unhappy that the text approved was not as far-reaching as the Constitutional Treaty (EPP-ED, PES, ALDE, Greens) and was complicated, or even “unreadable” (Greens, ALDE), and also from those who felt that the treaty did not respond to the real expectations of the European citizen (GUE/NGL) and was a piece of deception by means of which leaders refused to accept the wishes of the Dutch and French, who rejected the draft constitution (IND/DEM, ITS).
Portuguese Prime Minister and current President of the European Council José Socrates first of all set out the main points in the Lisbon agreement: - on the Ioannina clause (a Polish demand) where “we found a two-level solution”: a Council mechanism which formalises the Ioannina mechanism and a protocol annexed to the text which states that the Ioannina clause cannot be amended or repealed except by unanimous decision of the European Council - Socrates said this was the solution closest to the IGC mandate approved in June; - on European Court of Justice advocates general (a Polish demand): the European Council will approve a possible request from the Court to increase the number of advocates general from the current eight to 11 - “In this event, Poland will have a permanent advocate general,” said Socrates; - on the high representative (HR) for the Common Foreign and Security Policy: a statement annexed to the treaty guarantees the EP's involvement in the appointment of the HR, “even in the very first phase”, that is, when he/she first takes up his/her post at the start of 2009; - on the determination of competences (a Czech demand): a statement has been annexed to the treaty stating that the Council, acting on the initiative of one or more member states, can call on the Commission to bring forward proposals to repeal a legislative act - the Commission will not be required to act on such a request, but will have to grant it “particular attention”; - on the allocation of seats in the EP after 2009: Parliament will have 750 members, plus the president (751 in total), the additional seat will go to Italy - the European Council will adopt this decision in December, on the basis of a new EP proposal using the form of words agreed on in Lisbon. Alain Lamassoure, co-rapporteur on this matter, also announced a revised proposal which would take account of the European Council conclusions. Still on the composition of the EP, its President Hans-Gert Pöttering said on Tuesday that, by increasing the number of seats from 750 to 751, the Lisbon summit had not removed the EP president's voting rights. “It is clear that I retain this right,” he said. The European Council did not at any time envisage taking away the Parliament president's right to vote, Socrates pointed out.
Commission President José Manuel Barroso expressed his satisfaction, noting that the Lisbon Treaty would be the first treaty of the enlarged EU, in a Europe that was once divided by the Iron Curtain, and this, after the failure of the constitution in 2005 when “some predicted that a Union of 25 or 27 members could never agree on a new treaty”. “This demonstrates that the EU is stronger than was thought, that it is alive and well and that it can bring success,” Barroso went on.
Speaking for the EPP-ED group, Joseph Daul (France) welcomed the Lisbon agreement, “even though we would have preferred an even more far-reaching text”. With the new treaty, “Europe has given itself the means to meet the main challenges of the 21st century, since we now have the essential institutional wherewithal to make it work”. Now, flesh had to be put on the provisions of the treaty, particularly by informing citizens of the improvements made on preceding treaties: the Charter of Fundamental rights, the extension of qualified majority voting and co-decision making, the high representative for the CFSP, etc.
German MEP Martin Schulz, who leads the Socialist Group, said he was relieved that the institutional debate, which had lasted “too long”, had finally come to an end and that the EU could at last turn its attention to the real challenges which it has faced for years (he mentioned in particular social injustice, climate change and poverty in Africa). Even though “the Socialists in the EP did not obtain all that they wanted”, the new treaty will allow the EU to play a full role in the world, opined Schulz.
Graham Watson (British), leader of the ALDE Group, shared Schulz's opinion: with the extension of co-decision making, qualified majority voting, the development of the CFSP and placing justice and home affairs under democratic scrutiny, the Union will be better able to face the challenges of globalisation. “It is just a pity that the treaty was not more readable,” Watson, nonetheless, said, and he was critical of the last minute “horse-trading” among member states which brought about agreement: “the process was regrettable,” he said.
Brian Crowley (UEN) is hoping that the EU is loud and proud when it tells citizens from the different countries hoping to hold referendums (like his own country, Ireland) that this treaty will not be the beginning of new reforms. Crowley said that they needed to reassure citizens about this, and explain to them how the Union was going to use the new instruments made available in this new treaty.
Monica Frassoni, co-president of the Greens/EFA group is hoping that the new treaty “which is not simplified but is confusing and complicated” will be ratified, “even if we would have by far preferred a constitution”. Ms Frassoni regrets that pro-Europeans “buckled” to the demands of those putting the brakes on. She said that “the way ahead to a genuinely democratic, transparent and efficient EU is still far away”.
Françis Wurtz (GUE/NGL) again regretted that the leaders had not touched what appeared to be one of the “untouchable” subjects - “the red lines that we cannot cross but on which the focus of European citizens' criticism is centred”, namely the very foundations of the EU's socio-economic foundations, as well as the essentially military character of its CFSP action. He said that it was the absence of a response in these areas that fuelled the crisis of citizens' confidence, who are not asking the EU to “communicate better” but rather to “listen better” and take citizens' concerns into account.
Nigel Farage (IND/DEM) refuted the treaty as trickery and said that it had the same contents as the constitution. He hoped that it would be possible to press for a referendum in the United Kingdom. Same strains from Jean-Marie Le Pen (ITS) who said that there should be a referendum in every member state, given that the new treaty is a “copy and paste” of the European constitution rejected by the Dutch and French people. He affirmed that, “only a referendum can cancel out what was decided in a referendum”.
The president of the institutional affairs committee, Jo Leinen (PES, Germany) said that he was convinced that European citizens and national and European parliaments were the winners (because decisions on problems concerning them can now be taken more quickly). Leinen called for a swift ratification of the treaty and agreed with Jerzy Buzek (EPP-ED, Poland) who said that this ratification also depended on the work and explanation of MEPs. Lapo Pistelli (ALDE, Italy) stated that Lisbon had been perhaps more important for its rapidity of decision-making than for its contents (he regretted that there were too many opt-outs) and called on member states to use the coming months to win back citizens' trust. Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Denmark, Socialist) averred that the great success of Lisbon was showing how the Lisbon process was not reserved to a small number of people but was of concern to all citizens. He said that it also confirmed the fact that the Union is not just about markets but rather the affirmation of the principles of a social market economy. The French Socialist, Bernard Poignant declared that Jean-Monnet thought Europe would be forged through crises, and Lisbon proved that. Bronislaw Geremek (ALDE, Poland) said there was no acrimony in his welcoming the political change in his country and expressed the hope that it would fully respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Luis Quero (EPP-ED) was one of the Portuguese MEPs who were pleased with the name of Lisbon being associated with Europe's success, but pointed out that successive enlargements made the centres of power more distant from citizens. He deplored the fact that this trend would again be strengthened by the abandonment of the half yearly presidencies and the commissioner per country system. Johannes Voggenhuber said that the big post-Lisbon challenge was wining back citizens' trust. He provided a mixed description of the summit - “I ought to be very happy but I'm not”, affirmed the Austrian Green. Others saw things differently: Konrad Szymanski (UEN, Poland) said that the most important positive aspect of the Lisbon agreement is that they would finally stop discussing institutional issues, which for too long had eaten up the different governments' energy. Marianne Thyssen (EPP-ED, Belgium) said, on the other hand, that this European Council had merit, the merit of the presidency for not restricting itself to decisions about institutional questions, and had also held an exchange of views on globalisation and future problems. Thyssen wants a consolidated and readable text for citizens, as does Marielle De Darnez (ALDE, France) who, while regretting the abandonment of certain symbols and the granting of opt-outs claimed that Lisbon offered the means of strengthening Europe “as much as we would like”. Inigo Mendez De Vigo (EPP, Spain) said that this would be possible if everyone remembered the Union's objective as defined in the preamble - “closer Union between the people of Europe”. The British conservative Timothy Kirkhope said respecting the different people of Europe meant consulting them. He claimed that the commitment made two years ago in his country for organising a referendum “is not only politically necessary, but is a moral imperative”. Although Jan Zahradil (EPP-ED, Czech Republic) was satisfied with the results of Lisbon, he said that this was down to them having confirmed the fact that the Union was not seeking the suppression of the nation state. He is hoping that Europe will evolve down the intergovernmental path by rejecting what in his opinion is outmoded “constitutional thinking”. (H.B./L.G.)