The European Parliament's hemicycle in Strasbourg was the location of heated debate.
European Parliament says “YES” to Lisbon Treaty
Wednesday, 20 February 2008
After more than two hours of debate on the troublesome piece of paper that has come, after bearing several titles, to be called the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament gathered in Strasbourg has passed a resolution endorsing it with a clear majority. 525 votes were in favour, 115 against and 29 abstentions, showing that the general position of the Parliament over the treaty is highly supportive. Declarations ranged from extremely enthusiastic, like the one made by Mr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, to very critical of the report, as for example Ms. Mary Lou McDonald’s declaration who, speaking on behalf of the GUE/NGL group, said “this treaty is not about reform or efficiency, it is a carte blanche for further eroding democracy.”
The Rapport
The proceedings in the Parliament were centered on a rapport put forward by two co-rapporteurs, Richard Corbett (PES, United Kingdom) and Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (EPP-ED, Spain). The document itself was highly supportive of the new treaty, outlining several of its advantages. While regretful of the loss of the discarded Constitutional Treaty, Mr. Méndez de Vigo pointed out some advantages of the new treaty such as the enhancement of democracy or how it is a political solution for consensus between the member states. Mr. Corbett himself underlined how the treaty will increase the accountability of the EU institutions and, as a special notice for the MEPs gathered today in Strasbourg, how it will increase their powers, making the European Parliament almost the equal of the Council while increasing its budgetary powers.
Representatives from the Commission and the Council concluded the session at the end of the plenary. Janez Lenarčič from Slovenia’s State Secretary for European Affairs mentioned on behalf of the Council that the treaty greatly simplifies decision-making procedures as well as increasing their transparency. The Commission Vice-President, Margot Wallstrom added to this positive view on the Lisbon Treaty the fact that national parliaments will see their own control powers being increased if the Treaty is to be ratified before the 2009 deadline, a fact which, she said, is not inevitable.
Positions of the groups
During the parliamentary debate several position were held concerning the report. Although the overall trend was favorable, representatives of all political groups explained their views showing a variety of reasons to accept or reject it formally. Strong criticism came from more than one side of the hemicycle, although the very reasons for the criticisms differed.
For the EPP-ED group, Joseph Daul from France called for an accelerated ratification noting how the new treaty opens up the option for a million citizens to suggest the Commission to draft a proposal (although, in fact, the Commission remains free to propose – or not – a law, even if one million signatures have been gathered). He also added that it is "very important for re-launching Europe's momentum".
Further support came from the ALDE and UEN groups. While Andrew Duff (ALDE) deplored Britain’s “fear” of a full Treaty (mentioning thus the opt-outs won by the UK), Brian Crowley from the UEN mirrored the above arguments with observations on the economic advantages the united citizens of Europe will gain.
A different type of argument for the Treaty was put forward by Martin Schulz speaking on behalf of the Socialists. Mr. Schulz asked the rhetorical question ”where will we be in 25, in 50, in 100 years from now?" and presented the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty as one of the solutions that can help European citizens face the outside world.
In the opposite camp, two main sets of arguments were put forward during the debate. One was centered on the way the Treaty is being adopted, without a referendum in 26 of the 27 EU countries, Ireland being the only Member State that will put the new Treaty under popular assent. Mary Lou McDonald, speaking for GUE/NGL, was one of the voices presenting this argument. “Would people of Europe support such a treaty?" she asked, and then continued "I believe not! That's why they are not being asked." "The Lisbon treaty is a bad deal for Ireland, a bad deal for Europe, and a bad deal for the wider world."
The second type of arguments was centered on the content of the Treaty itself. Either opposing further integration or noting how the treaty in some ways will increase the democratic deficit. Nigel Farage (IND/DEM) said that “it is virtually identical in every regard (note: to the Constitutional Treaty), and it is constitutional because it gives the EU a full legal personality and the ability to amend itself”, and concluded "I hope that the people of Ireland send a large resounding NO”.
"I reject this report and the treaty it supports" was the position of Jim Allister (Non-Attached , United Kingdom). "In their arrogance, the EU political elite had thought that the people would be persuaded with their propaganda, he said. That is why the "key focus of the last 3 years was on hatching an intergovernmental conspiracy to foist this treaty on Europeans without having to ask them", Allister concluded, in reference to the fact that most member states decided to avoid ratification trough referendum.
Despite these various arguments and despite the fact Irish MEPs were among the most vocal during the debate (the referendum date in Ireland approaching fast), it all resulted in a massive support for the Lisbon Treaty. Having received the European Parliament’s assent, the Treaty is now awaiting 22 more ratifications in order to come into effect.