Brussels, 20/11/2008 (Agence Europe) - With just six months to go to the European elections, we continue our series of interviews with leaders of the political groups at the European Parliament. At the head of the Liberal Democrat Group, Graham Watson, who has been an MEP since 1994, explains how he sees the enhanced role played by the European institution within the Community's institutional triangle. He welcomes the concrete achievements made during this mandate of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) under his presidency. These include the group's increased political weight, the promotion of civil liberties and the choice of Chinese dissident, Hu Jia, as Sakharov prizewinner 2008. (M.B./transl.jl)
Agence EUROPE.: What are the main achievements of the Liberal Group to date?
Graham Watson: I think our main achievement, and I think it is a durable achievement, is that we have become the largest third group that this Parliament has ever known. In the past the Liberal Group has never been more than 50 people. In this mandate we've been over 100. And I think that is a great achievement. And we have achieved this not only in breaking the idea that there were 2 big groups and a number of small groups - we have established a medium sized group, if you like, but we have done so in the political centre of the House. And I think that is our greatest achievement. Of course, I can look at policy and see achievements there as well. I think the work or the role that we play, the key role that we played in the REACH directive on the control of chemicals, was an important one. The key role that we played in the agreement on cutting the costs of roaming on mobile telephones was an important one for European citizens. I am very proud that we were the group which pressed the Commission to introduce 2 directives, which they have done. One is the directive on patients' rights. It was a campaign by my group that led the way on that. And the other is the comprehensive anti discrimination package that the Commission has brought forward. So I think we have had an influence on legislation through our campaigning as well. And I suppose, finally, I should add that we have been successful in coming forward with candidates who have won the Sakharov Prize. Just this year Hu Jia is a good example. He was the Liberal candidate and he won.
What I am most proud of having achieved with my group in this Parliament is that we have taken in the real European forces - people who became rather worried about some elements of the EPP becoming anti-European, people who became worried that some elements of the left were becoming anti-European have found a home in my group, and we have created at the centre of the EP a larger group than we have ever had before, dedicated to the continued building and continued enlargement of the EU.
A.E.: What have the main achievements of the European Parliament been during this mandate?
G.W.: (…) Well, I think we have successfully been the body driving concern for human rights at European level. I mean the Commission and Council do not have a great record on human rights. We have. We as a Parliament have become the forum for human rights all over the world including within the EU. I look at the role of some of my own colleagues in dealing with civil liberties in Europe whether it is opposition to giving the Americans all kind of data about airline passengers or whether it is opposition to the widespread use of body scanners without adequate controls over how the data should be stored and used. That has been an important achievement of Parliament and one on which we have been very much involved. I think, generally, the EP has become a more mature body. I think we have become the counterpart, the natural counterpart, of the Council of Ministers with the Commission much more in the role of the civil service than in the past. We have done quite a lot in Parliament to reform our own working methods. The working group led by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Socialist German MEP, in which my group has been active, but all groups have been active, has come up with a number of proposals to change the way Parliament operates to make Parliament fit for purpose in the way the EU is developing, and I think through that we have tackled the problems or many of the problems that were summed up in the phrase “democratic deficit”.
A.E.: Do you consider that the fact that the Commission plays more of an executive role is a positive development?
G.W.: Well I think we are at an interesting stage in the European Union's development. If you believe, as I do, in Parliamentary democracy, then it should be essentially Parliament that are taking initiatives and taking decisions and the Commission should be the civil service. But, of course, in the case of the European Commission, it is a civil service with a difference and the key difference is that it is charged under the Treaties as being the legal guardian of the Treaties and as a result of being the legal guardian of the Treaties it can, and is required, to take initiatives to ensure the Treaties are respected. I would like to have seen a Commission which had been rather bolder in taking some of those initiatives than we have seen
A.E.: Could you give some examples?
G.W.: I would like to have seen the Commission take more initiatives in the protection of civil liberties for example, citizens' freedoms, than it has taken. I would like to have seen the Commission take more initiatives in the
promotion of respect for human rights in the world. (…)
A.E.: How do you judge the work of the Barroso Commission as a whole or by certain commissioners in particular?
G.W.: I think the Commission has been good when it has had the courage to take independent action. I think it has been bad when it has been afraid to take action because it did not want to offend London or Paris, or Berlin or Rome. So it is a mixed picture, a very mixed picture. I think we have undoubtedly a very, very strong team of commissioners … if I think of Neelie Kroes and her work on the competition portfolio, if I think of people like Dimas and his work on environment or Piebalgs on energy. The Commission has some very good people and I hope we shall see many of them back in the next Commission.
A.E.: What should the priorities be at European level over the next five years?
G.W.: I think the Lisbon Treaty. We should do everything we can to get the Lisbon Treaty into force and we should do everything we can to secure the Lisbon Agenda, which is more necessary at a time of economic recession than before. But I think that our view on the Lisbon Agenda and the development of our economy should take more account of what I would call the Cardiff Agenda and what I would call the Gothenburg Agenda. In other words, we have to get the right balance between economic growth, social cohesion and environmental sustainability, and one has sometimes had the impression that this Commission has been very focused on economic growth but less focused on social cohesion or environmental sustainability. Now, you can't properly judge a Commission until the end of its term of office and we have seen two things which my group has welcomed. The first is the so called social package - patients' rights, the various other proposals that have come forward. And the second is the environmental package, the anti climate change measures that we are debating now. If we can get those through successfully then perhaps our judgement of the Commission will be on balance good.
A.E.: Do we need a new Lisbon Agenda now and not in 2010?
G.W.: The Council has already given up 2010 as a goal. I think it is important that we concentrate our efforts on investment, research and innovation so that we can give Europe a strong base for the future and get people back to work.
A.E.: Who would be your candidate for the next Commission president?
G.W.: (with a chuckle) Well, as far as I know only one candidate has been announced so far. Maybe there will be others and I think governments should look at all potential candidates to see who they think would be the best You have to remember that my alliance here, my group, is an alliance of two different parties - the ELDR which is the bigger party and the European Democratic Party, which is the smaller party. I don't think that either of those parties is thinking of putting forward a candidate but I cannot rule it out. No, what I think is important (…) is that, whoever is president of the next Commission should have a strong parliamentary majority behind him (…). I would advise the Council, for after all they select the president of the Commission under the Nice Treaty, to be certain that that person can command support of a strong stable majority in the House (…).
A.E.: Also among the Liberals?
G.W.: We have many, many well qualified people, that's for sure!
A.E.: Will you be putting a Liberal leader forward for the European elections?
G.W.: Let me explain. When we believed that we would have the Lisbon Treaty in force for the next European elections, we were prepared as a political party to have candidates for the major posts. Now it is clear that we will do the next election and preparing of the Commission on the basis of Nice, we accept that it is the prerogative of the Council to choose the president of the Commission (…).
A.E.: During discussions at the ELDR Congress in Stockholm, the protective role of the euro in times of financial crisis was highlighted. What is your opinion?
G.W.: I take the view that, without the euro, some member states would now be bankrupt. The euro's success has saved Europe, including countries outside the eurozone. I hope that, in my own country, we recognise this fact and review our decision not to join.
A.E.: Do you think you will do still better during the next elections?
G.W.: That is up to the voters to decide but I certainly hope that we shall be back in the next Parliament even stronger than today.