One of the most astonishing items in the news recently was the announcement that the European Parliament will not be voting on the reports by Messrs Dehaene, Brok and Leinen during the plenary session. These reports were approved after detailed work carried out by the EP's constitutional affairs committee. Parliament is thus refusing to speak out about the measures for: overseeing the forthcoming renewal of the European Parliament; defining the EP's specific role in implementation of the Lisbon Treaty; or clarifying its relations with national parliaments. This decision appeared to me to be so incomprehensible that at first I thought it a communications error. The surprised and almost indignant reaction of Jo Leinen, the president of the constitutional committee, confirmed that the news was true.
Parliament must speak out. The “conference of presidents” is therefore seeking to prevent a public debate on implementation of the Lisbon Treaty before the formal approval of this treaty by all member states. It was afraid that a debate of this kind could undermine the result of the new referendum in Ireland by giving the citizens of this country the impression that their vote was not being taken into consideration. This concern is in itself a legitimate one and is aimed at cutting off the weapons supply to the Eurosceptics. It is undoubtedly necessary to counter their arguments but not by completely keeping quiet over key issues! This parliament, which is nearing the end of its mandate, must both inform the other institutions about how it perceives institutional developments and send its legacy of reflections onto the next parliament.
People of Ireland have required guarantees. Ireland was calling for four guarantees: keeping an Irish commissioner; respect for member states that want to remain neutral; confirmation of national autonomy over abortion, education and family law and compulsory consensus of all member states regarding taxation. These guarantees now exist and will be incorporated into legal documents by June at the latest. After this, the Irish people will be masters of their destiny and if they choose to reject the Lisbon Treaty, the verdict will be accepted and acknowledged. Other member states will then decide whether and how they will go forward together. This will not be the first time a country has put itself on the sidelines of integration progress. In the beginning, Europe consisted of only six countries, all those that joined afterwards asked to do so themselves. Those that chose to remain on the sidelines of certain projects (the single currency, the Schengen Area, military cooperation etc) have done so. The possible blocking of the Lisbon Treaty would create problems, that's for sure but member states that have decided to move forward will find their way. There is no sense in choosing to block an essential European Parliament activity out of fear of the Eurosceptics. It is essential to tell Irish citizens the truth about the Lisbon Treaty instead of the lies that destroyed the last referendum. The people will then decide.
Crucial debate. Parliamentary debate on the three reports is crucial for clarifying the consequences of any delay to the Lisbon Treaty and any other controversial questions. In particular:
a) the Dehaene report considers that: i) appointment of the new Commission president should occur immediately after the new Irish referendum because it will be at this precise moment that the number of commissioners and presidential powers will be made known; ii) the new EP will be elected according to the provisions in the Treaty of Nice (736 MEPs, 99 of them German) but the additional MEPs included in the Lisbon Treaty (751) will already have been elected earlier and have observer status until the entry into force of the new treaty. In order to maintain the number of German MEPs (which are due to fall to 96 with the Lisbon Treaty), the total number should be brought up to 754 by way of an amendment to the treaty;
b) the Leinen report identifies and comments on the new powers the Lisbon Treaty will confer on the EP with regard to the EU budget, common agricultural policy, justice, trade policy etc. The EP will become the legislator in all these areas on the same footing as the Council;
c) the Brok report clarifies the modalities and objectives of the future permanent dialogue between the EP and national parliaments, including the possibility of joint CFSP and ESDP control through respective budgetary powers. The report suggests implementation of a “permanent network” of specialised European and national parliamentary commissions that will help develop a European political area that brings EU citizens and institutions closer together.
It appears normal and necessary that Parliament discusses these three reports. (F.R/transl.rh)