President. – The next item is the joint debate on the following oral questions:

- (B5-0488/00) by Mr Poettering on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mr Barón Crespo on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, Mr Cox on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party and Mr Lannoye on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance to the Commission on European political parties;

- (B5-0494/00) by Mr Pasqua on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group to the Commission on political parties at European level.

  Poettering (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to submit seven considerations on this important issue. First: in 1991, the European heads of state and government expressly recognised the importance of European political parties in Article 138a of the Treaty of Amsterdam, guided by the idea that full-blown democracy in the European Union cannot be achieved without solidly-funded European political parties set on a reliable legal basis.

Secondly: next year will mark the tenth year without any material progress with the legal status of European political parties or life breathed into the Treaty. The group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats deeply regrets this.

Thirdly: we would remind the House of the important preliminary work carried out in the Tsatsos report adopted in 1996 and the Kuhne report of 13 April 2000. Other reports by the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control, the most recent being the Ferber report, have also indicated the urgent need for a European party statute and for this matter to be regulated.

Fourthly: we therefore welcome the fact that the Commission is prepared to advocate an addendum to Article 191 of the EC Treaty on European political parties and thank President Prodi, Commissioner Barnier and the College as a whole for treating this concern with the importance which it deserves. It is this which will enable a solution to be found. We hope that the wording selected will allow the Commission to finalise a European party statute quickly, not set the majority requirements in the Council too high and respect full co-decision for the European Parliament.

Fifthly: we also welcome the fact that the European Commission obviously also confirms the possibility, if my information is correct, of proceeding on the basis of Article 308. The possibilities offered by Article 308 must be used if and insofar as the Treaty is not supplemented. Nonetheless, we take the firm view that supplementing the Treaty is the best way forward.

Sixthly: the chairmen of the four largest groups in the European Parliament, i.e. the group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats, the Group of the Party of European Socialists, the Group of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance submitted a proposal for the core elements of a European party statute several months ago, in agreement with the chairmen of the party federations and the Commission, thereby demonstrating that this problem should and could be solved within a broad political consensus.

We are confident that other groups which do not yet have their own European party can be included in this consensus.

Seventh and lastly: we are also aware that, until such time as a European party statute enters into force, we need transitional rules regulating and limiting support for European political parties by groups in the European Parliament and we are prepared to take a broad initiative here which crosses the group divide. We want to promote the emancipation of European political parties from the groups still further and open up future prospects for them and our main concern is to see European political parties become a major vehicle for European political work. We want to give them this opportunity and we want, above all, to ensure that, in all aspects of support for European political parties, we have a transparent situation and clear legal conditions which can be presented as such to the public. This will serve the credibility not only of the parties but also of the European Union and the European Parliament.

  Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I agree with the words of chairman Poettering on this joint initiative and, if you will allow me, I would like first of all to remind you that ten years ago we achieved jointly – on that occasion we were the Christian Democratic Party, the Liberals and the Socialists – the inclusion in the Treaty of Maastricht of the article recognising the personality of the political parties. It fell to me at that time to negotiate its inclusion with President of the Council Lubbers and I would like to pay tribute to him because I believe that it was an important step.

We could have chosen to pose the question in reverse, that is to say, why, when the Commission had the monopoly on initiative for ten years, did it not take any step to regulate such an important issue? However, we are taking a constructive view. We want to resolve this problem which is not just a question of a legal vacuum but a constitutional problem for the European Union.

The current situation is becoming increasingly complicated. It was traditionally believed in the media that it was necessary to go ‘lobbying’ in Brussels, to behave like a pressure group. We managed to have the political parties recognised. In our countries they are a fundamental pillar of democracy. Nevertheless, in ten years, no progress has been made and we truly find ourselves in an increasingly difficult situation. We could go so far as to say that at least 75% of the Members of this House are affiliated to organisations which are not clandestine, certainly, but do not have legal status, and demands are continually being made of us, which we try to respect and comply with, by the Court of Auditors, a key institution within the European Union, but which must not be the institution which in reality establishes the legal framework.

We believe that it is absolutely essential, in order to ensure that it is the democracy of the people and not the power of money, which prevails in the Union, that the Commission should exercise its power of initiative responsibly at the moment. We have made certain useful suggestions so that we may find our way out of a situation which is not only unsatisfactory but also negative for the development of democracy in Europe.

  Cox (ELDR). – Mr President, the essentials have been covered, but I should like to reiterate the point that the right to propose legislation rests with the Commission. We have taken an initiative across the various political groups, which we presented in February to President Prodi. As a matter of law there has been a reference to political parties in the Treaty for more than seven years now. It states that the parties are a factor for integration, they contribute to the formation of European awareness and are a vital element in the democratic life of the Union and the political debate of the Union.

However, like several of the rather aspirational articles in the Treaties, Article 191, the article referred to, lacks a certain operational content. The question is: can the Commission take an initiative which breathes life and operational content into the aspirations of Article 191? That really is what the debate is about in this House today.

I share the concern of other speakers that the reports of the Court of Auditors – which, by the way, we fully anticipated in this House several years ago with the report of Professor Tsatsos, which pointed out the urgent necessity of validating parties in statutory terms – adds a new urgency. The institutions must be able to deliver accountability and transparency. This House does not have the right to draft legislation: that is the exclusive preserve of the Commission. We are asking for your assistance to ensure that this vital element, as the Treaty states, in the democratic life and political debate of the Union is validated by statute.

  Hautala (Verts/ALE). – (FI) Mr President, my Group has also been involved in submitting this motion to the Commission, simply on the basis that we are creating a Europe that is undergoing integration, but it is not at all clear that our citizens will be able to have a say in this merging Europe and keep pace with the advance of integration. I do not want to say that the political parties are the only, or even necessarily, the most important channel whereby the public can have a say in matters that currently affect society, but they play a part, and the status of the European parties must be defined without delay. Just as my colleagues have said, these parties must be brought out into the light of day. They are, in any case, already active today. They cannot replace the national parties, but cooperation among national parties is no longer necessarily enough.

It is important that we agree on fully open and transparent financing when the European parties are defined. It is, for example, very important that accurate information is available concerning their sources of income, and the financing of elections is of particular importance in this respect, since money must not determine success in elections.

My Group does not merely intend that we should acquire in this way a funding channel for the European parties, but what is most important is that there will now be the opportunity to define those basic principles on which the European parties can function. We must take the view that they must respect fundamental democratic rights, human rights and the principle of the rule of law when they function. The time perhaps has come to specify that only European parties such as these may enjoy public support.

If the legal basis is vague, we agree with the request for the Commission to take an initiative to make it clearer, and the Intergovernmental Conference must also take responsibility for this.

(Applause)

  Muscardini (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, according to the Treaty, parties which contribute to informing the citizens about events which take place within the Union and the European Parliament are political parties, and therefore, by their political activities, they contribute to the development of a European awareness and European knowledge.

But what is European awareness? It may be that the Treaties are not sufficiently clear on this subject, seeing that they do not mention the rights of the disabled and they do not provide enough protection for children and babies, who are nowadays particularly affected by widespread paedophilia in Europe.

European consciousness is that which must contribute to the development of mutual respect, which must prevent one culture prevailing over another, and which must ensure that tolerance is not confused with laxity and an absence of rules and laws and that laws and rules are not made with the intention of protecting some and not others. The European culture is born of respect for our national cultures and national traditions. New elements are integrated, but this must not lead to a situation where one category of individuals dominates to the detriment of another.

The citizens of the Union need greater protection of their rights, economic and otherwise, in the face of a world market which is becoming increasingly dominated by the interests of multinationals and of a world market created, one might say, to serve political as well as other purposes. Therefore, European parties are not those parties which, to further party interest, have the same acronym in different countries, but those parties whose common ideals, values and programmes lead them to unite within groups and to work together to give the citizens a louder voice and greater representativity

So, à la Voltaire, if you want to talk to me, lay down the rules now. We have to clarify whether the European parties are something that we want to develop now, something different which will overlap with the national parties, that is if we desire cultural and political globalisation to follow economic globalisation – which would bring total uniformity – or whether we want, effectively, to build a Europe in which parties with the same affinities and ideals can work together at European level. European parties, let us not kid ourselves!

  President. – Before hearing the speakers for the groups, I would like to give the floor to Commissioner Barnier.

  Barnier, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall answer this series of questions, which all, or more or less all, seek to question or probe the European Commission.

At the instigation of the chairmen of your Parliament’s main political groups, Mr Poettering, Mr Barón Crespo, Mr Cox, Mrs Hautala and Mr Lannoye, you asked the Commission to state its position on a very important and topical issue: the status of political parties in Europe. We therefore decided to look into this issue and I am now able to inform you of the European Commission’s position, as it considered the matter yesterday at its weekly meeting.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are aware of the many studies that Parliament has undertaken on this issue over the last ten years, as many of you have mentioned, such as the reports by Professor Tsatsos and Mr Ferber and, more recently, on 13 April, the report by your fellow Members, Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. We are aware of Parliament’s concern and we are familiar with your proposals. We share your desire for changes to consolidate European democracy and the extremely important process of European integration.

Mr Poettering reminded us of the Treaty’s current wording. I would like to talk about the former Article 138 A, which has now become Article 191, and which states that “political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union”. This text, Mrs Hautala, which, it is true, is merely declaratory, but which does have the virtue of existing, demonstrates that European political parties will under no circumstances come to replace national parties. This must be stated and restated. This is no more likely to happen than European citizenship, which is also provided for in the texts, ever replacing national citizenship. The one will complement the other, and that is the issue before us here today.

Nevertheless, as I have just said, as important as this text is, it is merely declaratory. It does not include any operational measures, which are clearly lacking and clearly necessary, particularly in order to answer, as Mr Barón Crespo mentioned, the requests and questions addressed to the Court of Auditors.

I shall therefore answer you by stating the European Commission’s intentions, whilst stressing the twofold concern, the twofold demand that we must address, or rather that we must all address together. Firstly, the requirement for speed: things have perhaps dragged on for too long over a period of ten years, without any solution being found. This speed must, however, be accompanied by another requirement, which is legal safety and stability. In the face of this twofold requirement, there are two options that must be considered. The first, which was recommended in the Ferber report, would be to draw up a legislative proposal on the basis of the current Treaty. In this framework, Article 308 could be an operational measure, at least in a provisional phase, linking it to Article 191, in content. But, and I am not saying ‘but’ in a restrictive way, it is simply an expression of the concern for legal security that I mentioned, you know as well as we do that the use of Article 308 is cause for quite widespread reservation and that, in any event, it requires unanimous agreement following consultation of the European Parliament. It is our opinion that the status of European political parties needs to have an unassailable legal basis.

The second option is recommended in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report and is also favoured by the President of the Commission, Mrs Schreyer, and the leaders of the five main European parties, as they stated in a letter that we received yesterday and I myself favour it. This would be, within the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference, to provide an amendment to Article 191 that would probably provide greater legal security.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, having said all of this, I should like to confirm, in order to provide a specific answer to your question, that the Commission is ready to take action. It will face up to its responsibilities and will therefore come up with an initiative. We shall do so immediately by taking the opportunity provided by the next trialogue to undertake a study and to find the best way to effectively bring the three institutions together on this issue. We shall do so in light of the discussion which will take place in July, by working on and using the optimum legal combination of articles 308 and 191.

In any event, we hope to achieve this in the short term by proposing, in forthcoming weeks and months, in the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference, the text for a proposal for an amendment to Article 191 which will complement this article, make it operational and more precise, and which will therefore provide a clear, sound, transparent and definitive legal basis for the organisation of political parties at European level. At this stage, since I have just been speaking about the Intergovernmental Conference, I feel sure that your representatives in these negotiations, your President, Mrs Fontaine, and the two other representatives who are taking an extremely active role, Mr Brok, who is present, and Professor Tsatsos, will be able to justify, relay and explain the need for this new legal basis by means of an amendment to Article 191 as proposed by the Commission.

I am grateful to you all for having brought this issue to the attention of the Commission and European public opinion. I am not surprised by the fact that it is Parliament that did so, firstly because there has been – as many of you have pointed out – a long wait and several requests in the past, but also because it is this Chamber that is the democratic forum for political debate in Europe. This is the right place to call for stronger foundations for this debate on behalf of the people of Europe, through and by means of the European political parties.

The Commission has therefore responded very favourably to this request. In the next few days, it will shoulder its responsibilities and will, in the spirit that I have just mentioned, launch a three-stage initiative, with the reservation that I mentioned right at the beginning of my speech, which is the coordination that there must be between us, with all the institutions.

You should not be surprised at this favourable response by the European Commission. The germ of the idea was already present in the Commission opinion of 26 January, which I delivered to you, with President Prodi, on the subject of the European Commission’s proposals for reforming the institutions, as, in the text of 26 January we proposed, as you yourselves did, to draw up European lists for the European elections. We also stated in that text that this opportunity for a certain proportion of European MPs to be elected from European lists would make the organisation of European parties and their role easier. I think that the time has come to consolidate this guideline, to make it more precise and to provide it with a clear legal basis. That is why, in the next few days, the Commission will be adopting the initiative that you have been requesting, first through the trialogue and then by looking at how the optimum combination of Articles 308 and 191 can be achieved within the framework of the IGC.

  Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation.

Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process.

We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference.

We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute.

The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves.

(Applause)

  Barón Crespo (PSE) . – (ES) Mr President, I take good note of Commissioner Barnier’s statement and the commitment which the Commission is making. Please allow me to express, not a criticism, but surprise in relation to the unassailable legal basis. The Union Treaty, at that time signed by the twelve Heads of State and Government and ratified by all the parliaments of the Member States with the approval of the European Parliament, which recognises citizenship, is not, it appears, a sufficient legal basis. This surprises me because to be associated with a political party is a fundamental right for citizens and, while our citizenship is recognised, that right is not. We did not manage to have this included in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Commission is behaving gingerly and takes this approach: two stages, almost three stages, according to the Commissioner.

I understand that the proposal relating to the tripartite dialogue and stemming from Article 308 is a provisional proposed legislative provision and the best laws, at least in my country, are provisional laws, which are the ones which have lasted the longest. This would allow us to end this current situation of a lack of legal status, and I take good note of this and I believe we should work in that direction.

The second step is the amendment of the Treaties. I believe I can say that we all support it, but the important thing at the moment is, firstly, the existence of a public commitment by the Commission to exercise its right to initiative, a common will to consolidate a fundamental dimension for European citizenship and contribute immediately to the political parties beginning not only to exist in reality, but also to be legally recognised, because I believe that this is an important step towards the construction of European democracy.

  Maes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I naturally concur with Mrs Hautala’s views on transparency. I would also like to thank the Commissioner for his proposal in which we will be given the opportunity to exchange ideas here with Parliament which is, after all, eminently suited to express its opinion on this matter. But what we need is an initiative – albeit hopelessly overdue – from the Commission. After all, for the past twenty years, we at the European Free Alliance have been bringing together political parties which want to help build Europe on the basis of a diversity of cultures, peoples and regions. In this connection, we have always attempted to stand up for the small and the weak, who cannot represent themselves in this big Parliament but whose concerns we are trying to take into consideration. Up to now, it has been impossible to do this fully transparently, because there has been no clarity with regard to the European parties’ expenditure and revenue, among other things.

But there are questions left unanswered concerning the future too. It has not yet been mentioned here, Commissioner, but I would like to raise the question nevertheless. Will the European democratic parties which in future appoint themselves as European parties only be supported if they stand for the values on which Europe is built? This seems a rhetorical question to me. I hope that the Commission can give me a clear answer to it.

  Kaufmann (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are totally opposing views on European political parties within my group. The main question raised is the extent to which they can actually represent a European public. Direct links with people exist not at a pan-European, but at national or regional level. That is where the parties are anchored, that is where their members and electorate are.

The situation is in fact quite paradoxical. First, there are European parties. Secondly, there is Article 191, which states that European political parties are an important factor for integration. Thirdly, at the same time, we still have no idea what European political parties actually are.

On 12 December last year, the chairmen of the Party of European Socialists, the European People’s Party, the Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and the European Free Alliance and the secretary-general of the European Federation of Green Parties themselves stated in a joint declaration that clarification was needed as to what a European party is. Now I am convinced that, outside this House, no-one, to all intents and purposes, can comprehend or understand this. Plus, the parties tend to take themselves very seriously. It is not by chance that citizens – and not just in my country – are highly sceptical about things such as party memberships. When they commit, it is mainly in civil initiatives, non-governmental organisations and various structures within the civil society.

I have nothing against European parties. I think that they face the challenge of achieving cross-border coordination of their work during the course of integration. But one thing is unacceptable and that is a situation in which European parties exist and receive funding but are still undefined. The criticism of the Court of Auditors was justified.

I should like to close by saying that I too am in favour of finding a solution to this muddle. But the solution must include treating political democratic forces in Europe equally, including those which define themselves otherwise and which, for example, are critical of the EU, and not excluding them from this problem-solving process.

(Applause)

  Vanhecke (TDI). – (NL) Mr President, I would first of all, perhaps specifically for the benefit of the German delegates, insofar as they still care about respecting the rule of law, like to remind you of the judgement by the German Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe, in which the European Union is unambiguously defined as a confederacy, and hence the opposite of a federal state. In fact, this vision of the European Union is also held by the large majority of citizens of our Member States for whom our Union is a close partnership of free peoples and states which very clearly respects the principle of subsidiarity. In the light of this, the project of European political parties is the umpteenth fundamentally undemocratic project because it can only widen the enormous chasm which exists between the electorate on the one hand and European political decision-making on the other. But this is apparently the price which some, hiding behind a mask of rhetoric, are willing to pay here in order to channel even more of the taxpayers’ money to already excessive party funds. It is also a project of people who are hoping to create the European federal superstate. Indeed, these people are trying to attain their goal, the undemocratic federal superstate, by guile, and seize upon a variety of issues, including monetary union, the unified statute for MEPs and the possible accession of countries which are not even geographically situated in Europe, such as Turkey, to help them reach that goal.

In a European Union which really respects the principle of subsidiarity, we do not need a European political party. Anyone who has different ideas about Europe or who would like to increase the pompe afrique, the money pump from the taxpayer to the European political parties, should have the courage to stand up and speak out, but you are lacking this courage.

  Bonde (EDD). – (DA) Mr President, I am a strong supporter of cooperation between peoples. Many problems can only be solved jointly. Global problems must be solved in the UN. The court here in Strasbourg can support us in connection with human rights. In Brussels, we have close economic cooperation between the EU and the EEA in connection with a common market. Would we obtain better solutions, however, if decision-making were, in every conceivable case, to be centralised in Brussels? Would we obtain better democracy by downgrading the national parties and raising the profile of common supranational parties? Would more people join, become active members and take part in debates in connection with elections and decision-making? Supranational EU parties are an artificial product which will never be financed through voluntary subscriptions but only by siphoning off EU funds. We are familiar with the pattern from many national parties which have distanced themselves from the electorate and instead allow themselves to be financed by the State, business and the unions. It is quite right that the State should support parliamentary work and provide citizens with information. It must not, however, be a propaganda machine for the view of the majority. To quote Grundtvig, doyen of the public education movement in Denmark, there must be ‘freedom for Loki as well as for Thor’. The supranational EU parties will never win the hearts and minds of ordinary people. They will instead be populated by highly paid officials bound to no country in particular – bureaucrats without roots in local political associations. Manifestos will be written by small groups of experts out of touch with the lives of real people. An artificial product of that kind does not deserve financial support from the EU. My group will vote against subsidies for supranational EU parties and against bending the Treaty by using flexible clauses for that purpose.

  Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – (FI) Mr President, this is a question of democracy. Democracy is transparency, public accessibility, rule by the people, and participation. The current European political parties do not represent transparency or public accessibility. It is a rhetorical question, but who of us knows anything about the European political parties? The only certainty is that some groups in the European Parliament have given financial support to the Europarties, contrary to the regulations concerning parliamentary funds. They have been discovered in the investigations conducted by the Court of Auditors. I suspect these abuses are now being covered up.

The European political parties do not represent democracy. They are parties of parties and that means that the public does not have the opportunity to participate directly in their activities. For rule by the nation, you need a nation. Europe is not a nation; it is nations. We have no concept of supranational democracy. Now, supranational rules and regulations for Europarties controlled by the big countries are being drawn up, with the Commission’s support, by the big parties in the big countries. Parties of parties are not democracy.

  Dupuis (TDI). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Seppänen, Mr Brok and Mr Vanhecke because I think that contrary to what the Chairman of the Liberal Group has told us, the key point has not been stressed.

The key point – and there is a high degree of unanimity on this within the Chamber – is money. It is the spoils that our friends at the back are already looking to share out amongst themselves. It is the institution of a European system of public financing and it is not therefore the strengthening of democracy but of ‘partiocracy’, which in many Member States has already caused the damage we are all familiar with. That is my first point.

The second key point – and this has probably gone somewhat over Mrs Maes’s head – is that we would be able to create new rules for bureaucracy which would then allow us to discriminate against one party or another, not on the basis of criminal laws or an infringement of such laws, but on the basis of new, discretionary rules and therefore – because this is what you want, Mrs Maes – to make it an offence to express an opinion.

At this point, I doubt – judging by the number of mouths that are watering here – that we have the majority that is required to reject this motion, to reject this institutionalisation of bureaucracy, which is becoming more and more pervasive within Parliament. I think that the public should be made aware of this: what is being proposed to us today is not a Europe of the citizens but a Europe of the taxpayers, whom we are once again going to bleed dry in order to allow bureaucracy to proliferate in the future. This is a long way from what a democracy should be and, in my opinion, we must condemn this initiative. Political parties are de facto associations and perhaps they should simply publish their budgets. It is true that this is not done at national level, but perhaps we should begin to move in that direction so that, from now on, we know what they are doing with their money.

  Barnier, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I should like to add a few words, but not to provide individual answers to everyone who has spoken on this matter. Indeed, the diversity of the statements that I have just heard is fine proof of both the topicality and the sensitive nature of this debate.

Whilst thanking several of you, particularly Mr Karas and Mr Barón Crespo, who have properly understood the thrust of the Commission’s position, I should like to say quite clearly to Mr Barón Crespo, so that there is no ambiguity, that we intend to study all the options and to do so immediately. I expressed this by calling Article 308 a valuable operational procedure. To put it simply, with regard to Article 308 with whose rationale and constraints you are familiar, we need this dialogue within the trialogue. We need this collaboration between the three institutions. We shall try to achieve this immediately but we are working on the combination, which I explained just now, of Article 308, which we feel is an appropriate operational basis – subject to the trialogue and the resulting opinion – and Article 191. After this we will accept our responsibilities – and I repeat this for the second time – and we shall also accept our responsibilities within the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference, at which I promise to fight for the proposal that the Commission will be producing in the next few weeks, as strenuously as you know I can.

The subject you have raised, Mrs Maes, is an extremely sensitive one, and this issue is clearly open to various interpretations. I shall take the liberty of giving you my personal feeling on this matter at this stage. I cannot believe that the political parties that expect to benefit from the new status recognised in the Treaties – if we do indeed achieve these changes for European political parties – are not as a matter of course committed to respecting the democratic values that are the foundations of the European Union.

I respect the opinions that many of you have expressed. I do not think, however, that we should speak, as Mr Vanhecke did, of an “antidemocratic process”. The political parties are united in this very place through you, in joint groups. They consult each other. Outside the European Parliament, joint meetings and demonstrations are held and joint statements are made. Ultimately, we must recognise the true nature of political debate in Europe and give this debate a sounder structure and a clear and transparent legal basis. Considering the matter from this point of view, these changes would represent progress for the general public but also, Mr Dupuis, for the taxpayers, who are generally the same people.

I should like to add or repeat that these European political parties, as they are organised today, on an unsteady foundation, and as they will be organised tomorrow, on a clear and legally sound basis, if we succeed, will not replace the national political parties, they will complement them and will give them a European dimension. By the same token, European citizenship has never replaced and will never replace national citizenship: it complements it and gives it a European dimension.

That is what I wanted to say, Mr President – with a few personal observations, of course – on the reasoning behind the Commission’s position as I explained it just now. This is the basis on which we shall be working in the next few days in order to achieve the best possible results as quickly as possible.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.