Brussels, 11/03/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 11 March, the European Parliament meeting in plenary session in Strasbourg, debated the annual policy strategy for 2009 which the European Commission brought forward on 13 February. In this document, summarised in EUROPE 9602, the Commission announces a multitude of initiatives and proposals in six areas for next year: growth and jobs; sustainable development and climate change; immigration policy; putting the citizen first; Europe as a world partner; better legislation; and communicating on Europe.
2009 will be a short year for José Manuel Barroso and his commissioners, whose terms of office come to an end in October.
The year will also be rather special for at least two other reasons: the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the new European Parliament after the European elections. Mr Barroso opened the debate by pointing out that next year would also be the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 5th anniversary of the EU's “big” enlargement to ten countries of central and eastern European and the Mediterranean. He reiterated the Commission's determination to have dialogue and close cooperation with the EP in an effort to prepare the 2009 legislative work programme and progress towards a “Europe of results, a Europe that benefits its citizens”.
Speaking for the EPP-ED group, Harmut Nassauer from Germany welcomed the Commission's strategic priorities and said that they “have the full support of our group”. The CDU MEP wanted, however, Mr Barroso's cabinet to take more efficient action against bureaucratic excess and administrative loads created by European legislation. The Commission has to develop a new “culture of subsidiarity” and get this message across to citizens, preferably before the European elections, explained Nassauer.
Hannes Swoboda (PES, Austria) appealed for a social Europe that was ecological and sustainable. He said that it was obvious that in the context of globalisation, the EU had to bolster its economic competitiveness but affirmed that this objective was not incompatible with a social and sustainable Europe. On a level of external relations, Swoboda highlighted the need to support the economic and social development of western Balkan countries. He hammered home the fact that the long term stability of this region, crucial to the EU, would depend on its economic and social development. In connection with the idea of the Union for the Mediterranean, Swoboda asked the Commission to make it clear to member states that such a project is only possible if it involves all EU and Mediterranean countries that are interested. The PES group is also expecting new Commission initiatives for the Black Sea region, affirmed Mr Swoboda.
Diana Wallis (Britain, ALDE) welcomed the Commission's 2009 strategy highlighting the work that still needed to be done to complete the internal market. She also thought that the EU should do more to ensure financial stability in Europe, which she said was still of a lot of concern to citizens.
Brian Cowley (Ireland, UEN) entirely supports the 2009 strategy, as well as Mr Barroso's priority for a “Europe of results”. The Fianna Fail MEP said that they had to take citizens' concerns into account, beginning with employment and economic growth. He also stressed that his party would do everything during the referendum planned for May/beginning of June to get the Irish people to approve the Lisbon Treaty.
Eva Lichetenberger (Austria, Greens/EFA) was more critical. She said that the 2009 strategy was “too vague and too hesitant”, especially on the environment. She affirmed that they got the impression that the Commission was avoiding confrontation at a time citizens were expecting “clear declarations” from it with the approaching elections in 2009. The MEP from the Greens also criticised the contradictions between the Commission's energy and environmental objectives and the budget priorities in research and development, “where we continue to support the development of the nuclear industry when we should be investing in research into alternative and clean energies”.
Catherine Guy-Quint (France, PES) is concerned about the funding of priorities. She said that setting ambitious strategies deserved praise but “where are we going to find the money” to fund these policies. She pointed out that there was a shortfall in budgetary resources and regretted that the EU did not provide its goals with adequate funding. Ingeborg Grässle (EPP-ED, Germany) would have preferred the Commission to have already indicated in its political strategy for 2009 what budgetary resources would be used for its priorities and where would the money come from. Véronique de Keyser (Belgium, PES) complained of the “lack of ambition” in foreign policy, “I would have liked to know how the Commission intended to improve the use of financial instruments” to make the EU a “soft power” in international crises and “how it intended to better use conditionality”. The Belgian MEP deplored the fact that “we have never sent as much money to Palestine as now but the people there have never been as poor as they are now. We also fund so many things that are immediately destroyed”. Jacek Sarjusz-Wolski (Poland, EPP-ED), chairs the foreign affairs committee and criticised the Commission's “dramatic silence” on the need to develop an energy policy. He stated: “We urgently need such a common policy and I regret that this priority is not part of the Commission's 2009 strategy”.
His colleagues Lutz Goepel (EPP-ED, Germany) and John Bowis (EPP-ED, UK) also expressed regret. The former bemoaned the fact that there was no reference to food supply security in the Commission strategy, and the latter regretted that there was no reference to health policy. “We must do more to allow crossborder care as, otherwise, the Court of Justice will decide for us”, said Mr Bowis.
Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL, Germany) questioned the very concept of economic liberalisation and the Lisbon strategy which “does not work in the interest of citizens”. His criticism also targets the Commission's communication policy. “We want to communicate with the citizens but we do not give them the right to state their views, via referendum, on the Lisbon Treaty”, he said.
Frank Vanhecke (NA, Belgium) joined in Mr Markov's criticism on the lack of direct citizen involvement. “Citizens are never respected anywhere. The Commission is a college of politically appointed officials who think they know everything better than the citizens and who act over their heads”, he said scathingly, he too calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM, Denmark) spoke along the same lines. He said they were talking of a strategic programme defined by “unelected officials”, when it should be up to the citizen representatives to fix the EU's strategic priorities. “If that were so, the EU would be a real democracy instead of this mixture between Machiavelli and Mussolini that it is today”, Mr Bonde stated. (H.B.)