Press release

The House approved a report by Jo LEINEN (PES, DE) on the opening of an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on EU treaty reform. This report forms the basis of Parliament's opinion, which under Article 48 of the current EU Treaty, is required before the IGC can start work. But the European Parliament's opinion voices certain reservations about the reform mandate.

 

 

MEPs welcome the fact that the agreement reached by the European Council on 23 June included most of the content of the draft Constitution. Specifically, the EU's legal personality, the increased use of qualified majority voting (which would become the rule for all EU policies except defence, social security and fiscal policy) and the inclusion in the treaty of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are among the reforms deemed to guarantee a more efficient and democratic Union.

 

Members also expressed a positive opinion on the addition of the new provisions on energy solidarity and climate change.  The approved text welcomes the tight timetable for the conclusion of the IGC, to allow the new Treaty to come into force before the 2009 European Parliament elections.

 

 

Whilst broadly endorsing the content of the agreement on the treaty reforms, MEPs criticised the IGC mandate as not adequately addressing the challenges that the Union faces today.

 

They regret the increased number of exemptions granted to Member States in important areas, which could undermine the cohesion of the EU. Specifically, they disapproved of any derogation granted to Member States on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as damaging to the EU's identity.

 

The Parliament also deplores the loss of parts of the draft Constitution, including symbols (flag and anthem), a clear statement of the primacy of EU law, and clearly comprehensible naming of legislative acts.  MEPs therefore decided to consider modifying Parliament's procedural rules in order to lend and official character to the flag and the hymn.

 

 

According to the June European Council conclusions, the European Parliament will be closely involved in the work of the IGC. Three MEPs will join the conference to ensure that Parliament's voice is heard. During the previous IGC, in 2003-4, only two MEPs joined the meetings. Parliament is to choose its three IGC representatives on 12 July.

 

Parliament wants to play an active role both during and after the negotiations. In fact, once briefed by its three representatives, Parliament will if necessary put forward proposals on specific issues within the scope of the mandate. After the 2009 elections, according to the approved text, Parliament will also make proposals on further constitutional settlements for improving the functioning of the EU.

Members stressed the Parliament's intent to ensure full transparency of the IGC's work. Its opinion says that the EP will publish all the working documents submitted to the Conference. Moreover, it will keep an open dialogue with national parliaments and the civil society all throughout the IGC and during the following ratification procedure.

 

 

Finally, an amendment proposed by Alexander ALVARO (ALDE, DE) on the European Parliament's seat was defeated with 280 votes in favour, 370 against with 33 abstentions.  It read:  "Calls for the mandate of the IGC to be extended to include a change in the seat of the European Parliament from Strasbourg to Brussels and of the European Council (summit) from Brussels to Strasbourg."

 

 

 

 

The debate was opened by Portugal's Minister for European Affairs, Mr Lobo Antunes, who said the mandate for the IGC was "a compromise between opposing positions" but was a "balanced text".   Highlighting the fact that Parliament will be fully involved in the IGC, with its three representatives, and stressing that the EP would be "fully consulted", he urged Members to give their full support to the mandate in their vote.

 

 

For the Commission, vice-president Margot Wallström pointed to four reasons why the agreed mandate would give the EU a sound institutional basis for the future: it would make the institutions more modern and accountable; the Charter would safeguard fundamental rights as regards the implementation of EU law and was binding on the EU institutions and Member States (except one); the EU would speak with a single voice on the world stage; and swifter, more consistent decisions could be taken in areas such as climate change and freedom, justice and security.

 

She then turned to the issue of explaining the treaty's importance to the public, saying "The European train is back on track but it is not at the end of the journey.  The citizens must be on board".   Communication would be crucial and the Commission, for its part, was planning to put forward some ideas in the near future on ways of organising a debate on the reform treaty during the ratification period.

 

Rapporteur Jo LEINEN (PES, DE) began by stating that the IGC "will be at the heart of what the Portuguese presidency wants to do", and that "whether or not we get the treaty will determine the success" of the presidency. The European Parliament has "pulled out all the stops to ensure that we are not responsible for placing obstacles in the path of the IGC", Mr Leinen continued, because "we want an outcome by October. We have a clear mandate, so this is possible." Mr Leinen urged the Portuguese presidency to "stick to your guns, don't let yourselves be distracted", and in particular, not to "let errant Member States turn the whole process upside-down." The presidency should "stick to the deal that has been agreed", for "if you work within the mandate you cannot help but be successful."

 

Mr Leinen stated that "the reformed treaty is, in essence, different to the original constitutional treaty:" He added that "the idea of a Europe of citizens and states, rather than merely a Europe of states has been somewhat watered down with the loss of article one." It is, he said, "no longer a reflection of the will of peoples and states. This is regrettable, and could turn out to be more so." He also expressed some anxiety concerning the "array of derogations attached to this IGC... are we all pulling in the same direction or do we have a 'Europe à la carte'? Do we have two categories of Member States?"  Mr Leinen also criticised the "opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the UK", stating that "this is a community of values."

 

He continued by saying that "we seek to call the rest of the world to account on human rights", when in fact "we are unable to take a united line on human and fundamental rights." He added that "In the interest of people of the UK, we call upon the heads of state and government to restore a degree of unity [regarding] human rights."

 

What we have is a "simplified treaty that unfortunately threatens to be more complex than anything we've seen before", Mr Leinen said, and it should therefore "be accompanied by a declaration that makes clear what this is all about."

 

 

"It was a good thing that the summit agreed on the IGC, and that is why we shall vote in favour", said Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO (EPP-ED, ES), adding that his group will nonetheless "judge by results". The EPP-ED will be represented at the IGC by Elmar BROK (EPP-ED, DE), whom it will regard as a "guardian" of the proposal's substance, said Mr Mendez De Vigo. Many advocates of referendums "are out to destroy Europe", so we must "fight together" to dispel "mistrust and suspicion" and find a way to break the "institutional deadlock", he concluded.

 

The Socialist Group "welcomes the IGC, accepts the mandate and supports the timetable", said Richard CORBETT (PES, UK). That the IGC mandate "salvages" 90% of the constitution has excited much comment, noted Mr Corbett, who pointed out that although that mice and men are 90% identical, the 10% difference is rather important.

 

The 10% lost  from the constitution include the treaty's "constitutional" nature, the title "foreign minister", a statement of the supremacy of EU law, and symbols. All this makes it a very different beast, which is a matter of regret for this House, and also for many in the Member States. But the "crucial point" is that these changes "will make it easier to ratify", concluded Mr Corbett.

 

The prospect of a "quick and efficient IGC, that clears up ambiguity, secures legal certainty and builds strong consensus behind the reform treaty" is welcome, said Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK). It is right that the EP should seek to retain those parts of the 2004 document that protect its interests, but it should also seek to ensure that the footnotes do not "contaminate the corpus" of EU law and the jurisdiction of the courts, he said. The ALDE group will fight to prevent any "political spillover" from the UK's arrangement with respect to fundamental rights, because the European Parliament "cannot tolerate first and second class citizenship". We should "fight suspicion that the IGC is a 'grand exercise in obscurantism'". Plebiscites should not be "pitched to oppose Parliaments" and Parliament's role in the IGC will help to ensure transparency, concluded Mr Duff.

 

On behalf of the UEN group, Konrad SZYMAŃSKI (UEN, PL) said that "it seems to me that as far as this treaty is concerned, this parliament doesn't like compromise." The criticism of the treaty in the report, he added "is unjust." Mr Szymański objected to the "stubborn language used in the document" and said that "the mandate is obviously a success."

 

Johannes VOGGENHUBER (Greens/EFA AT) said that "perhaps Europe has been hit harder than we realise", for we have a situation in which "Member States are suspicious" and "people are very jealous of their sovereignty." The mandate, Mr Voggenhuber continued, "veils the real character of Europe" and thus "gives us a fake idea of European construction", for what we are witnessing right now is in fact "a reawakening of nationalism."

He added that "the opting out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is almost a killing blow."

 

Francis WURTZ (GUE/NGL, FR) asked "how do we understand the democracy at the heart of this process?" We have had, he said, "totally illegible negotiations" along with a "real fear of there possibly being a referendum." There is a real lack of awareness surrounding the reformed treaty, Mr Wurtz added, and it is vital to "get people talking about the substance of the future treaty" in order to ensure that "we have full democracy, full consultation of our European citizens."

 

Bernard WOJCIECHOWSKI (PL) for the Independence and Democracy group said that the constitution is "little more than a sloppy attempt at federalising the Union at any price" and that "this parliament has become so arrogant that if it were not so pathetic it would be funny." He stated that "to say that we maintain an open dialogue with anyone is a mere joke" and that "scholars and politicians declare [the new treaty] a complete failure."

 

Philip CLAEYS (ITS, BE) said that we have effectively "admitted that the European constitution...is not actually going to ever enter into force" and that "we're now going to have a new effort to bring the constitution in through the back door." The debate on the treaty has led to a situation in which we "have to draw a distinction between the so-called 'good' Member States and the so-called 'bad' Member States" and that we have reached a point where "we are not actually able to represent the interests of our citizens and we have to think about what we really mean by democracy."

 

"This is a report which conspicuously avoids support for popular ratification of the recast constitution", said Jim ALLISTER (UK) on behalf of the non-attached Members. He added that "such is the determination to rush this report through that we have abandoned due process in this house to a degree that would make a despot blush." The constitution, Mr Allister continued, "permits self-amendment which for most will mean never again having to consult the people about whose constitutional status we would make changes."

 

 

For the Council, Mr Lobo Antunes said "what counts is the commitment to make progress". But, he was confident that "the determination is there".  We are sending a signal, he argued, that "this project serves the interests of Europe and the world".

 

The mandate, he continued, would lead to "more effective institutions and more democratic decision-making" and, alluding to the need to ensure public support for the treaty, he concluded by saying that transparency "is part of our commitment".

 

For the Commission, Mrs Wallström said it was a rare thing to get a second chance in life: less than a year ago the constitution was being pronounced dead or on life-support but here we were coming up with a reform treaty! 

 

She made two final points. On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the real political choice had been between a non-binding charter or a legally binding charter with opt-outs. She preferred the latter. On ratification, she felt that Members of the European Parliament would surely not regard parliamentary ratification as less democratic than referendums. 

 

At all events, regardless of the ratification method used, everyone was now obliged to engage in communication with the citizens all over Europe, and she repeated her earlier statement that the Commission would be making proposals on this point.