EU Parliament debates crucial summit on EU's future

The debate was opened by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter STEINMEIER on behalf of the Council presidency.

Describing the summit as "a decisive event for the future of Europe", Mr Steinmeier stressed that the EU had so far been a "success story" and that "our model is envied throughout the world".

Expectations of the summit were high. Apart from the constitutional issue it would look at a "common integration policy", notably with the countries of north Africa; justice and home affairs, especially an extension of Schengen in 2008; the European Neighbourhood Policy, seeking to bind neighbouring countries closely to the EU in the areas of energy, transport and the internal market; and the "central Asian concept", which must focus not just on economic issues: political stability was important too and these were countries where "moderate Islam" exists.

However, the summit would be judged by its success on the constitutional issue. Here Mr Steinmeier congratulated the Brok/Barón Crespo report for "maintaining a delicate balance" and being "realistic". While the "point of departure" in his view was the 18 ratifications, he acknowledged that the No votes "reflect concerns not just in those two countries". Nevertheless, during talks it had become clear that everyone wanted to make Europe "more effective and more dynamic". Among experts on areas such as trade, justice and home affairs, energy and the social dimension, there was a consensus that "the progress achieved must be protected".

There was also "a broad consensus that the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be made binding". Some people were concerned that this must not be to the detriment of the Member States' powers but the minister said believed an agreement could be reached.

On subsidiarity, he pointed out that some wanted to go further and have even more involvement of national parliaments. Regarding majority voting, the German presidency was still keen to reduce the right to use vetoes.

Mr Steinmeier stressed that everyone took the Berlin declaration seriously and wanted the constitutional issue wrapped up in time for the 2009 elections. While only cautiously optimistic, his impression was that "there is a new dynamism in the air". "Making Europe a success together" was not just a slogan, it was also what would underpin the summit.

Vice-President of the European Commission, Margot WALLSTRÖM, responsible for Institutional relations and communications strategy, said she first wished to look at three other issues which the summit must consider before turning to the "treaty settlement".

First was migration. Here "the increasing challenges must be addressed in a spirit of solidarity". We should seek to "reap the benefits for the labour market and society at large" but illegal migration required better coordination, and she backed moves to set up rapid border patrols. Second was HIV/AIDS. This was a "critically important public health issue for Europe". Political leadership was needed to ensure progress on prevention, research, surveillance, treatment and support. Third, climate change was not a concern of the forthcoming summit agenda but, in the wake of the G8 meeting, the EU "cannot remain silent".

Nevertheless, the key issue at the summit would be the "treaty settlement". The starting point must be that the EU was there "to respond to the needs of its citizens, to realise policy goals and to deliver results". While "democracy, transparency and accountability" were crucial, "we can't implement agreed policies with one hand tied behind our back".

The first place to seek solutions was the Constitutional Treaty which was "still pertinent". Ultimately, however, it was not sufficient to reach agreement between Member States and the institutions. The EU requires "a new narrative" to explain to its citizens why the EU needs a new treaty, said Mrs Wallström. The public expects action on issues such as climate change, migration and energy but "we have not yet succeeded in persuading them to see the connection between effectiveness in these areas and an appropriate treaty settlement".

Most Member States seemed to agree that a short IGC focusing on "a limited list of issues" was needed. She therefore concluded by saying "Hopefully we are now back on track. If we can hold our nerve and stay focused on the needs of an effective and democratic Europe, the result will give us a European Union which can face the challenges of the 21st century with confidence".

Political group speakers

Speaking for the Parliament's largest group the EPP-ED, Joseph DAUL (FR) said it was necessary to cerate an EU able to make decisions. An EU that is "more effective, more transparent, and more democratic". What comes out of the crucial summit would have to be agreeable to all Member States including those who said 'no' and those Member States where ratification is still pending. The new text should respect the principle of proportionality, a single legal personality for the EU, a stable EU presidency, the extension of qualified majority voting (QMV) and the legally binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Mr Daul called for a strong parliamentary voice in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), with both representatives of the European Parliament and the national parliaments. European Parliament President Pöttering would deliver this message at the European Council of 21-22 June.

Martin SCHULZ (PES, DE) said that the forthcoming European Council was about the EU's very own future. There is a risk, he said, that it could lead to a weaker EU, with divided Member States, "our strength is in our unity", he said. The EU had to face up to the challenges of globalisation including China and India which represent together one-third of the global population. Individual Member States were "pygmies" in comparison. He welcomed the work of Chancellor Merkel who, as a physicist, would have to bring "many disparate elements together". "The EU needs more than Nice, Nice was a flop, Nice will kill the EU," he concluded.

Graham WATSON (UK), on behalf of the ALDE Group said"' There is one thing we all know, those of us here and those protesting in Germany: the key challenges facing our people. Challenges like climate change, energy security, international crime remain unsolved, because our institutions of government are no longer fit for purpose.

Acting together, Europe could make a real difference where individual Member States meet only a brick wall. The detention of the Bulgarian nurses is a case in point .And yet on wider issues, matters of crucial importance well, as Mark Twain reminded us, when all is said and done much more has been said than done!

How can we protect our citizens from abuse of data? How can we ensure energy security? How can we manage migration policy if we fail to equip ourselves with the tools for the job? Are the naysayers really serious in saying they will sacrifice good governance for the sake of flags and titles? Can they really defend a system of national vetoes which, as President-in-Office Steinmeier, pointed out, castrates key initiatives? Co-decision and qualified majority voting must be the norm, not the exception, in European policy-making. That voice will argue against a de minimus compromise on the substance of the text. It will insist that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is too important to be downgraded in the manner proposed by the UK because that way lies differential membership, differential citizenship, differential rights which have no place in a Europe of equals. The path of the lowest common denominator outcome leads inexorably to a two-tier Europe. Let the faint hearts be warned. This is our best chance to make Europe work for our citizens. We must not and we will not let it go.

Brian CROWLEY (IE), on behalf of the UEN Group, said: "we do not need the Constitution to take immediate action to solve the humanitarian crisis for the people of Palestine. That can be done simply by agreement and by decision. Already we have made some moves towards that and there are other areas that we can move forward, so this idea that has been put forward that, without this final agreement, we will suddenly fall into a state of paralysis is incorrect. Mechanisms will be found to overcome the problems and the difficulties. But I also believe that there is an onus on us when we speak about what the people want to see us doing. The people do not want to see us taking on the new initiatives that we do not have the power to do at the present time. In fact, I was quite shocked that the President-in-office of the ECOFIN Council made such a bombastic and ballistic attack on a single country when he was supposed to be acting in a neutral position. Chancellor Steinbrück wrongly made an attack on Ireland and wrongly made an attack with regard to the arrangements that were put in place and agreed by the Member States and the European Commission.

Concluding, Mr Crowley stated that "when we look to the future of the European Union, the future that we must deliver to our children and our grandchildren, must be better than what our grandparents gave to us, and they gave it to us out of the ashes of the Second World War. Look at the beautiful child that they created. Let us make that child an adult fit for the 21st century."

Monica FRASSONI (Greens/EFA, IT) began by saying that "Parliament has accepted that this reform process will be an inter-governmental process" but that she was "frightened we'll see another Nice." Ms Frassoni added that "we must avoid giving into the temptation to go onto the defensive", because "in the past we had to adjust to compromises and we're footing the bill for those compromises today." Ms Frassoni was "convinced that we have to relaunch, in the context of the IGC, the whole idea of European electoral lists" and that "for 2009 we have to start preparing European elections with European lists."

Concluding, Ms Frassoni stressed the need for greater involvement for the Parliament at the IGC, adding that she was "not at all happy with the idea of having three of four MEPs as observers [.]" It is only through full participation of MEPs that "citizens will have an input on European institutional reform."

Referring to earlier in the debate, Helmuth MARKOV (GUE/NGL, DE) said that "Mr Steinmeier mentioned succeeding together...but together with whom?" With some people wanting more Europe, some people wanting less, Mr Markov said there was "a cacophony of noise but no-one knows where we're going." The Council, he added, "has been sticking to the idea of the Lisbon strategy of turning more and more spheres of life into market-run practices", resulting in a situation in which "political decision making is being rolled back."

On the G8 summit, Mr Markov said that "it's all very well for the heads of government to get together over a barbecue to debate the future of Europe" but the problem was that the "objectives of the big Member States and economic states are being described as what the world needs" when in fact "we don't have agreement among our 27 states."

Jens-Peter BONDE (IND/DEM, DK) said that the new constitution was being "revived by giving it a new name without any proper referendums." Mr Bonde added that "this constitution is on its knees." The EU, Mr Bonde continued, "can no longer be considered a parliamentary democracy", because there is "no doubt that legislation put forward by civil servants and lobbyists is bringing an end to parliamentary democracy." Concluding, Mr Bonde stressed the need to "get back to work" in order to produce a constitution that "represents a living, thriving democracy", and emphasised that it was crucial to "give the last word to our voters."

The constitution, said Ashley MOTE (ITS, UK), "totally reverses the relationship between the EU and Member States, and between the governors and the governed." The current EU reforms, Mr Mote continued, will lead to a situation in which "the state seeks to exist in its own right and have the people answer to it." Mr Mote said that "the original draft of the constitution...attempted to turn a Europe of nations into a nation called Europe" and that "this [new constitution] will not be a constitution in any real form" but instead a "1950s solution to a 1920s problem." Mr Mote concluded by saying of Europe, "you are our neighbours; you should be our friends, but nothing more."

Jana BOBOŠÍKOVÁ (NI, CZ) stated that "everyday that goes by shows that not adopting the constitution doesn't led the EU into a crisis." She added that "any new treaty must ensure just membership for all, regardless of size." Mrs Bobošíková stressed that "the legitimacy of the EU will depend on equality between Member States and equality between citizens", and that "there should be no watering down of subsidiarity."

British speakers

Andrew Duff (ALDE, UK) said: "What do you make of this latest craze for the simplified Treaty? Personally, it seems strange to me that those who support such simplification seek to delete what is the simplest article that we find in the 2004 package, which is the first article that sets out the principles for the Union's foundation. The problem is that in trying to simplify we end up by being simplistic, and in seeking to define an amending Treaty - rather than a consolidating Treaty - we are in the realm purely of semantics, and changing terminology and in suppressing the symbols we risk turning Euro-scepticism to Euro-cynicism.

The fact is that there is no way out of this crisis, except with strong democratic leadership and a clear vision of the common interest of Europe, and such leadership is certainly being provided both from the Presidency and from the Commission at present."

Nigel Farage (IND/DEM, UK) said: "I am surprised we have the affront to call this a debate because the Minister did not tell us any of the substance of the negotiations. But, of course, there is no debate, is there? There is no debate in the national parliaments, no informed opinion in the press, no debate at all - and why? Because this whole Treaty is being put together in secret and that is because you do not want to involve the citizens of Europe. You are fearful that the more they find out about your grandiose plans, the more likely they are to vote 'no'.

Worse still is the downright dishonesty with which this whole process is being pursued. For Angela Merkel to talk in a letter about the proposal to use different terminology without changing the legal substance is the stuff of Alice Through The Looking Glass. It is the twisting of language. It is the deliberate attempt to stop there being free and fair referendums in European countries.

It is your plan to act like a bulldozer: just to sweep aside the French and Dutch referendum results, to pursue your political goals without taking the people with you. I have no doubt that you think you are going to get away with it, but from a British perspective I have no doubt that Mr Blair, in his last act as the British Prime Minister, will sign up to virtually anything you want him to. But he will be handing to his successor something rather like a hand grenade with the pin pulled out, because the pressure on Gordon Brown in Britain to have a referendum on this Treaty is going to be enormous. In fact, I would go further. I am confident that this Treaty will not become British law without the Brits having a referendum, and when they have that referendum they are going to say 'no'.

But if you are proud of your European project, if you are true democrats, then you will join me in the call to let the people decide their own future. Do not foist it upon them."

Roger Helmer (Non-attached, UK) said: Mr President, a key focus of the German Presidency has been its determined attempt to revive the substance of the EU Constitutional Treaty, which was roundly rejected by the French and Dutch voters. We claim to be a Europe of values based on democracy and the rule of law, yet this attempt to resurrect the Constitution in defiance of the clear and expressed will of the voters demonstrates a vast contempt for democracy and for European citizens. And the methods proposed are deceitful and dishonourable.

You have heard this already but I shall say it again - we have Angela Merkel's letter, in which she proposes different terminology without changing the legal substance, and replacing the Charter of Fundamental Rights by a short cross-reference having the same legal value. Mrs Merkel, this is downright dishonest! You should be ashamed. Our leaders will then fraudulently pretend that the new Treaty is wholly different and deny us a referendum.

I remind my country's incoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, that he is bound by a clear Labour manifesto commitment to put the Constitution to the British people. He cannot pretend that a few cosmetic changes can escape that commitment."

Timothy Kirkhope (EPP-ED, UK) said "My text voices concern, as you might expect, that the Council meeting, which is a vital one, should not devote all its attention to the issue of the Constitution. I and my colleagues do not believe that a Constitution as such is necessary or that there is a massive crisis in Europe at this time that requires it. We hope that a solution will be found which does not require the Constitution to be pushed through regardless, following the views expressed by the people of France and the Netherlands. We hope that the Laeken Summit and what it stood for - which was to make the EU more transparent and less intrusive in the lives of our peoples - will be the basis of whatever comes out of that very important summit.

But I want to say how pleased I am that the Chancellor of Germany has taken such an interest in the issue of climate change and the need for us to work in a cooperative fashion to try to find solutions to global warming and, indeed, the global poverty which arises as a result of those changes. She shares with my party leader, David Cameron, a firm commitment to tackling one of the gravest challenges facing mankind today. It is in relation to that kind of hard policy that we all feel that there is a massive urgency and priority and that we can work together in the right way. We can act together in a way which actually enhances the EU in the minds of the people rather than making them suspicious of its intentions for their future."

Council and Commission responses

Replying to the debate for the Council presidency, Mr Steinmeier agreed with those speakers who had said "there can be no alternative to success at the summit". As to the remarks that the public relations dimension was "lacking", he stressed that if the summit produced new proposals, these would be made public and "there will be enough publicity!". He also stressed that the number of questions still to be resolved at the summit had been greatly reduced in the last few weeks and was now "manageable".

Mrs Wallström believed that the EU institutions "deserve a second chance but cannot afford a second failure". The institutions also had a common responsibility to explain to people how the method of intergovernmental negotiations would be combined with listening to citizens. Responding to a point raised by several MEPs, she reiterated the Commission's view that Parliament should be closely involved in the IGC. Lastly, referring to her earlier point about devising a "political narrative" to communicate with the public, she said this too must be a joint endeavour.

| Haut |

• Chancellor Angela Merkel invites the EU Heads of State and Government to the European Council in Brussels (20/6/2007)
• "The Future of Europe"- Speech by EU Commission President Barroso (12/6/2007)
• EU Constitution: EU Parliament calls for clear roadmap on reforms in constitutional process (7/6/2007)
• "A road map for the EU constitutional process" - Speech by EU Commissioner Wallström (6/6/2007)