Making up for lost time

France must move on from institutional navel-gazing and make the EU relevant to its citizens once again, says Alain Lamassoure

Rarely has a member state government spent so much time preparing for its six month presidency in such close cooperation – nay, symbiosis – with the European parliament. Is this what we can expect to see in future presidencies – assuming the Lisbon treaty comes into force – or is it merely a reflection of the fact that the rotating presidencies could soon be a thing of the past?

Whatever the reason, France has worked hard well in advance of taking over the EU reins, with ministers making regular trips to Brussels and Strasbourg during the first half of the year in order to meet with parliament committees: April’s plenary session saw no fewer than six ministers travel from Paris to Strasbourg.

At the same time, members of seven parliament committees have travelled to Paris since April, while four others will hold meetings there during the presidency itself. Political group leaders have also travelled to the French capital, where they have held meetings not only with their national parties but also with prime minister François Fillon and other members of the government.

Earlier in the year, president Nicolas Sarkozy himself met face-to-face with the president of each of parliament’s political groups, as well as hosting a working lunch for them all. He has also agreed to talk to parliament not only at the end of the presidency but also in October following the informal summit meeting. Finally, no fewer than 10 inter-parliamentary meetings are planned in Paris between July and November, bringing together members of the European and national parliaments.

The priorities of the French presidency are those not only of France but also of every EU member state, and of the European parliament. This is no surprise: after many years of interminable negotiations (the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, Rome, Lisbon, etc) and constant enlargement (Scandinavia, central Europe, Bulgaria and Romania) it is vital that we make up for lost time by tackling those areas where we need effective European policies to help us cope with today’s increasingly globalised world.

Take immigration, for example. The framework agreed at the Tampere summit in the second half of 1999 has been implemented too slowly and in any case is already out of touch with the current reality. France will propose a new deal, a European immigration and asylum pact, at the summit in October, but parliament will have to take a position on several related issues long before it debates these new proposals. The returns directive has already provoked controversy, and proposals on tackling businesses employing black market workers and a European “blue card” for highly-skilled workers will also have to be treated.

Meanwhile, the energy and climate change debate has passed to a higher level. The targets have already been set, under the German presidency: to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, at the same time as increasing the share of renewables to 20 per cent. What we need to do now, however, is agree on how this will be achieved – the so called climate change and energy “package” on the extension of the emissions trading scheme, the promotion of renewable energy sources, carbon capture, new rules for sustainable biofuel production and the reduction of transport emissions – in a way that sets an example to the rest of the world without penalising European trade or industry. The council will need parliament’s support in overcoming national interests and establishing a truly European policy in this area.

As far as agriculture is concerned, the health-check of the CAP has long been on the agenda, but the current global food crisis has given it a new importance. For the first time in decades, demand for food outstrips supply, which has lead to a doubling in price for certain basic crops. The Lisbon treaty, should it eventually be adopted, will for the first time give parliament the power of codecision over legislation and budgetary issues relating to the CAP – the EU’s oldest and most expensive policy. Parliament has already held a public hearing on the issue and its formal opinion on the CAP healthcheck will be published in the autumn ahead of the end-of-year summit in December.

The referenda of 2005 and 2008 have shown that distrust of Europe is still rife among many citizens, which is why we need to act quickly to bring into force new legislation that will directly improve the welfare of Europeans, whether at work or at play. The directives on working time and temporary workers can now be definitively adopted, while work is progressing on the portability of pensions. The European commission is due to publish its new “social Europe” proposals, including reforms of works councils, measures to tackle discrimination in the workplace and proposals on how to create a better work-life balance.

President Sarkozy has said that he wants to tackle any issue that affects the way people live at the European level – the legislation in areas such as the right to live and work anywhere in the EU, the right to social security, the mutual recognition of qualifications and family and inheritance issues is often poor, badly applied or, worse still, lacking entirely, in some parts of the EU. This was not an issue when the EU was first created, but with 10 million Europeans now living in a country other then their own, and with many thousands of families consisting of people from more than one EU country, there is now a clear need for clarification.

Parliament has always been the most impatient of the EU institutions, and any efforts by the presidency to make up for lost time will be welcomed by MEPs. That is the challenge for the French presidency which straddles – hopefully – the pre- and post-Lisbon eras, and two very different concepts of Europe.