Barroso: ‘Don’t come with red lines or vetoes’

STRASBOURG: José Manuel Barroso has given a stark warning to national governments ahead of Thursday’s crucial EU summit on the constitution.

“My plea to heads of state and government is this: don’t miss this opportunity, as we have a real chance of a deal,” the European commission president said on Tuesday.

“We need treaty reform to make Europe more efficient and provide better continuity. If we don’t have it, the entire credibility of the EU is at risk, both with our citizens and on the world stage.”

Speaking to journalists in Strasbourg after the commission’s weekly meeting, Barroso said that the time had come “for statesmanship to prevail over politics”.

He sent a thinly veiled warning to countries such as Poland and Britain not to scupper the chance of a deal because of unfounded fears.

“Nobody wants to create an EU super-state. The EU is made by and for its citizens and its members.”

“But what we cannot accept as the commission is any agreement between member states that looks to roll back the community acquis or reduce the community competences.”

“Any reformed treaty – as I think we should call it – must be an improvement on what we have and make life easier, not more complicated.”

Countries could not push for a treaty that allowed them to pick and chose the parts of Europe that they wanted, he said, as this “threatened the very union itself”.

“We are pragmatic, so we understand the need for opt-outs for some countries, because of historical or other reasons, but opt-outs cannot be the norm.”

Commenting obliquely on British concerns – the so-called red lines – about given more power to Brussels on justice and home affairs, the commission president was blunt.

“Personally, I don’t think we should have opt-outs at all, but in the area of justice there are historical reasons that make it more useful to have opt-outs – Britain and Ireland have judicial systems that are very different from the rest of the continent.”

“But we should be making life easier, not harder, so trying to add another pillar or opt-out to a system that is already absurdly complicated – it can take six years to pass EU laws, when our main international partners can do the same thing in a matter of months – is not helpful.”

Barroso acknowledged that the talks could be long – “people are talking about a three-shirt summit” – but that EU leaders owed it to their voters to get an agreement, no matter how long it took.

“Let us be decisive and constructive and not give in to the outdated language of victory or defeat,” he urged.

“There will only be losers if we fail.
In a sideswipe at Poland, which has threatened to veto any agreement if the German presidency refuses to discuss the issue of voting rights, Barroso warned of the need to show that the EU was working.

“I say to the new member states in particular that you need to show that enlargement has not made life more difficult, but that instead you have given new impetus to the EU.”

“Please avoid appearing to block a decision, and try to be constructive. It is not useful for your perception. Don’t come with red lines or vetoes.”

He stressed that the issue of voting rights – the weighting given to each country according to its size and other factors – had not been a cause of the no votes against the constitution in France and the Netherlands.

Poland wants the issue of voting rights to be put on the agenda for the summit and the subsequent intergovernmental council – mainly in order to increase its influence and decrease that of Germany – but Berlin has thus far refused to even table it for discussion this week.

Barroso said that leaders had to be very careful not to disturb the fine balance that had been negotiated at great length among and within the institutions.

“We don’t want to open the chapter on voting because if we change that, then we will need to change everything to keep the balance right.”

That, he said, was why proposals to agree to an EU president (a figurehead) but drop plans for a foreign minister should be looked at with care.

“The president would act as a figure head for the inter-governmental group that is the council, but the foreign minister would have community power to act on behalf of the EU – this was the balance we agreed in the first IGC on the constitution.”

“There is no balance if we have a president without a foreign minister.”

• Previous article
• Next article