Europarlementariërs beoordelen Sloveens Voorzitterschap, Europese Raad en Iers 'nee' met Sloveense minister-president (en)

In a plenary debate between MEPs, Council and Commission on the outcome of last weekend's EU summit and Slovenia's six-month Council presidency, the focus was on the next steps following the "No" vote in Ireland. Many MEP stressed the need to respect referendum outcome and wait for further Irish analysis whilst allowing other Member States to proceed with their ratification processes. At same time, say MEPs, the EU should continue to tackle citizens' concerns such as rising food and oil prices.

Council

On behalf of the Council presidency, Slovenia's Prime Minister Janez JANSA said he saw the challenge facing the EU following the Irish referendum as essentially a problem of communication. When the people are broadly well off, how can you build support for change, or "How can you explain that you have to mend the roof before the rain comes"?  At all events, the Council had agreed on three guidelines: a solution must be found without undermining the substance of the Lisbon Treaty; the ratification process must continue; the message from Ireland must be taken seriously.  

Among other topics addressed by the summit or on which progress had been made under the Slovenian presidency were soaring oil and food prices, justice and security (including Schengen enlargement), the energy and climate change package, liberalisation of energy markets, agreement had been reached on Galileo, a European perspective for the Balkans.

The Prime Minister quipped:  "In order to strengthen the identity, people need to identify themselves with something they have in common - football, for example. A football match EU - Latin America would surely get a lot of media attention and a high attendance at the stadium."

European Commission

Commission president José Manuel BARROSO said the summit had reached a broad consensus on the need for the EU not be diverted from its work while time was taken to reflect on the Irish "No" vote. 

Member States had been divided over oil and food prices, some calling for a focus on long-term measures, others for support now for those who in need. Mr Barroso saw no contradiction between these views.   

However, he was glad that the European Council had backed the climate and energy package.  The best way to avoid vulnerability to oil shortages was to be less dependent.  Moreover, this package was "not just about the future of the planet and the environment but also about energy security".  He also stressed the internal market dimension of this issue, highlighting the legislation on the separation of energy production from supply.

The summit had also dealt with external policy issues including the Western Balkans, the Mediterranean, the eastern partnership and increased development funding for Africa.  Overall, he believed the summit had been a successful one, even though it had taken place at a difficult moment.

Political group speakers

On behalf of the EPP-ED group, Hartmut NASSAUER (DE) believed the situation following the Irish 'No' vote was "a crisis of public confidence in the EU".  Although "many motivations were at play in the 'No' vote", ultimately it was a "system failure" and in his view, "a treaty under international law is not suited to a referendum". 

Nevertheless, the Irish 'No' was really a No to the European Union. Mr Nassauer above all blamed the Commission, saying it had "the image of an institution of technocrats".  "People feel more and more irritated. They feel nannied by Brussels, by an invisible, incompetent bureaucracy".  And citing the rejection by the Member States of the soil protection directive on subsidiarity grounds and the Commission's apparent determination to override this rejection, he called for more to be left to the Member States and for a stronger "cult of subsidiarity".

Martin SCHULZ (PES, DE) said that Mr Nassauer's statement was a good analysis of the state of play in the European Peoples' party, which predominates in 21 countries and the European Commission, commented Martin Schulz (DE) for the Socialist Group. The aftermath of the Irish "no" vote on the Lisbon Treaty shows how far not just the EU institutions, but also Member States, are from citizens, he continued, nonetheless describing the package of measures announced by the Commission after the vote as a "clever move." As a notable achievement of the Presidency Mr Schulz cited the "lifting of the blockade against Cuba", which he said set a useful precedent for partnership in combating climate change worldwide.

"Of course the treaty has to be saved", said Mr Schulz, adding that this entailed action by Member States, in line with the subsidiarity principle, to promote social equality in the EU.

"The EU has enough entrepreneurial spirit - what's missing is social measures," he continued, citing the case of a constituent whom, with an income of €1,300, a wife and two children and a flat costing €600 per month, would need to save an extra €60 or €70 a month - i.e. 10% of his disposal income - just to pay higher energy costs.

Citizens in this position can hardly be expected to take an interest in the treaty, noted Mr Schulz, adding that if "we give the impression that shareholder value in the Commission is more important than everyday life, then people will turn away." Rebuilding confidence in Europe entails showing all citizens that they matter to the EU, he concluded.

Graham WATSON (ALDE, UK) congratulated the Slovene Presidency on its "solid progress", which he said included extending the Schengen agreement to new Member States, achieving a political agreement on Europol, and building consensus on the "return" directive, as the first building block in a common immigration policy.

Mr Watson also praised the Presidency for its contribution to work on the common agricultural policy "health check," measures to promote the free movement of knowledge, the postal services directive, and diplomatic breakthroughs in the Western Balkans.

Public anger at motorcades in Ljubljana was none of the Presidency's doing, but symptomatic of wider disillusionment with the Union, continued Mr Watson, who observed that the Irish referendum result highlighted the need to "bridge the gap between government and the governed," inter alia by prioritising "people" issues such as civil law and protection against food price rises.

Monica FRASSONI (Greens/EFA, IT) said the Slovene Presidency had "done its best", but had been unable to present new views on energy, the Mediterranean or China - these would no have to await its French successor, said Monica Frassoni. The Council had been "far too diffident" about Italian policies in the fields of justice, waste disposal and illegal work, she continued, asking "what would have happened if a candidate country, rather than Italy, had adopted measures making immigrants into criminals?"

The picture that emerged from the Presidency was that "what counts is the interplay between states," she continued, affirming that the EU's role had been "downgraded" and that Parliament had been "blackmailed" into accepting the return directive. The EU's failure was not a lack of solidarity, but a failure to organise a common response to common problems, to "find a European purpose in all this", she concluded.

Brian CROWLEY (UEN, IE) congratulated the Presidency and its permanent representation staff on a "fantastic job", which he said was great advertisement for a small country and its "vibrant, intelligent young people". This success had been achieved despite the pressures of rising food prices and, in some sectors, falling wages, he noted.  Specifically, he praised Slovenia's "quiet diplomacy" in helping to bring about a solution in the Western Balkans, breaking a 14-year deadlock on the temporary workers directive, and building consensus on Cuba and Zimbabwe.

Francis WURTZ (GUE/NGL, FR) condemned the decisions taken during the Slovenian Presidency on the draft directive on working time, the harmonisation of the expulsion of migrants and the launching of official negotiations to reinforce relations between Israel and the EU, and said "good luck to Europe if it wants to be credible in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East".

Kathy SINNOTT (IND/DEM, IE) said the Irish voted No to the Lisbon Treaty because "Ireland has become increasingly uneasy with finding its democracy eroding and its values changed" and that "if you want the people of Ireland or anyone else to embrace Europe, you will have to listen to them telling you of the Europe they want and act on their concerns".

Roger HELMER (NI, UK) said: "We are treating the Irish with utter contempt, just like Robert Mugabe, we simply reject the verdict of the people".  He also said the EU has "lost its last pretence of public consent or democratic legitimacy" and described it as "an authoritarian conspiracy against the people".  

British and Irish speakers

Philip BUSHILL-MATTHEWS (EPP-ED, UK) asked "how can the EU work democratically when most of the people are not allowed to vote and those that do vote are ignored." The French presidency, he said, should "let the politicians show that we are at last listening to the people, and then maybe the people will start listening to the politicians".

Other speakers to follow:

Mary Lou McDONALD (GUE/NGL, IE), Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK), Jim ALLISTER (NI, UK), Avril DOYLE (EPP-ED, IE), Proinsias DE ROSSA (PES, IE),Gay MITCHELL (EPP-ED, IE), Derek Roland CLARK (IND/DEM, UK)