Mixed reaction to EU presidency plans

MEPs reaction to the EU presidency programme set out by Angela Merkel varies widely.

The German chancellor presented MEPs in Strasbourg with the programme for Germany’s six-month EU presidency, which started on 1 January.

The priorities, which range from relaunching the constitution to pushing for an EU energy policy, have triggered a mixture of praise and criticism from the leaders of parliament’s political groups.

Unsurprisingly, the most controversial element is Merkel's plan to put the EU constitution back on track.

Joseph Daul, the newly-elected leader of parliament’s biggest group the EPP, said he generally welcomed Merkel’s speech.

Members of Merkel’s own CDU/CSU party, as expected, also spoke out in favour of her presidency programme.

Markus Ferber, the chair of parliament’s CSU grouping, argued that reviving the constitution is the right answer to criticism of the EU’s growing centralisation – as voiced last week by Germany’s former president Roman Herzog.

“What we have put together with the convention on the constitution was the right answer to Roman Herzog’s analysis – namely the need to include national parliaments early in the legislative process.”

Socialist leader Martin Schulz praised an “inspired” speech, but said it was “sketchy” on what it had to say about a “Social Europe”.

Francis Wurtz, the chair of the left-wing GUE/NGL group, was also critical of
Merkel’s programme, saying the EU should focus on social issues.

“My conviction is that the discontent that the current course of the Union is causing is not just French and Dutch. It is European and it is mainly rooted in social issues," he said.

Meanwhile Alde leader Graham Watson described the German presidency programme outlined by Merkel as “bold” but said he was “disappointed” by some elements.

Greens/EFA co-leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit warned Merkel she had her work cut out in trying to revive the constitution and called for a “public debate” on the issue.

Finally British conservatives Timothy Kirkhope and Neil Parish dismissed what they referred to as “constitutional navel-gazing”, arguing that any attempt to revive the treaty were futile.

• Previous article
• Next article