Brussels, 24/09/2008 (Agence Europe) - Less than ten months away from the June 2009 European elections, the European Parliament is deeply divided over political and legislative policies that the European Commission is expected to pursue over the next 13 remaining months of its mandate, (which expires at the end of October 2009). Meeting on Wednesday 24 September, for a plenary session in Brussels, MEPs were unable to agree on a common text formulating its wishes and expectations from Parliament for a 2009 work programme that the European Commission is due to adopt in October. On Wednesday, Commission Vice President Margot Wallström explained that there will be another opportunity for a parliamentary debate on 19 November when José Manuel Barroso and the entire College appear before MEPs to present a detailed work programme.
On Wednesday, a joint draft proposal by the EPP-ED, ALDE and UEN was rejected by 306 votes against, 102 in favour, with 27 abstentions. All individual resolutions from the political groups were also rejected. The attitude of the PES Group (Martin Schulz and Hannes Swoboda abstained, whilst a large number of members voted against), was ultimately the decisive factor in getting the text thrown out. Several elements explain the PES no vote. Firstly, the deep dissatisfaction among most Socialists about the Barroso Commission's “social deficit” and the refusal by the majority of MEPs to support an amendment proposed by Mr Swoboda in favour of a social Europe. In concrete, this amendment was rejected by 374 votes against 206 in favour and 16 abstentions, which demanded that the Commission be judged at the end of its mandate on the way in which it has responded to “appeals” by citizens for a Europe that reinforces the social model, provides security to citizens faced with globalisation and guarantees respect for “fundamental social rights”. This amendment also called on the Commission to draw the lessons from the current turbulence on the financial markets, “through appropriate regulation, transparency and responsibility”. The doomed amendment also called on the Commission to be judged on its efforts in favour of an “immigration policy based on fundamental rights and integration, including a more structured strategy for fighting against exclusion of the Roma”. The PES Group was also disappointed on a number of other points. One Socialist amendment (rejected by 345 votes against 253, with 21 abstentions) requested the Commission to “increase its support for decent work in the world” by introducing “strict conditionality” into EU trade relations and by promoting the inclusion of decent work into the WTO negotiations. Another PES disappointment was the introduction into the text of the amendment from the ALDE Group, which noticeably reduced the EU's 2009 enlargement goal. The initial text of the common resolution underlining the importance of concluding accession negotiations with Croatia “as quickly as possible” was amended at the behest of the ALDE (with support from the majority of MEPs). It stipulated that the objective was only to “pursue the accession process with Croatia and Turkey, in hope that the two countries fulfil all the criteria in the necessary time”. This downward revision of ambitions involving Croatia was unacceptable to the PES, which subsequently rejected the whole text.
During the debate preceding the vote, substantial differences between the groups had already appeared. Although Hartmut Nassauer (Germany) indicated broad support from the EPP-ED for Mr Barroso and his policy of a “Europe of Results” (energy security, fight against climate change, strengthening the EU's economic competitiveness, job creation and immigration etc), Hannes Swoboda (PES) severely criticised the Commission's “serious shortcomings” in the social arena and in its tackling of the current financial crisis. The Austrian MEP said that “citizens expect the Commission to take their social concerns seriously and to makes proposals” that respond to them. Silvana Koch-Mehrin (ALDE, Germany) also requested “clear words” from the Commission about the financial crisis and rising food and energy prices. She said, however, that these current affairs should not make the Commission forget that the EU's political priority had to be strengthening its economic competitiveness. Speaking on behalf of the Greens/EFA, Eva Lichtenberger from Austria criticised the Barroso Commission for not keeping its promises, including that on reducing CO2 emissions where, “the car industry is successfully defending its interests' and in the area of energy policy where “too much importance has been given to the nuclear industry”. Ms Lichtenberger also called on the EU to take measures to regulate the financial markets more. Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL, Portugal) also said that it was “totally unacceptable” that the Commission was not proposing anything concrete to protect “the most vulnerable citizens” affected by energy and food price rises and the loss of purchasing power caused by the financial crisis. She said that instead of taking new initiatives, “the Commission continues with the same instruments that don't work, such as the Lisbon strategy”. (H.B/transl.rh)