During the plenary of June, the European Parliament was confronted with three thorney questions for the institutional future of the Community: the distribution of seats in the European Parliament, the procedure for the nomination of the President of the European Commission and - last but not least - the European Union after the Danish "no".

The Assembly took a few decisions despite the difficulties and the contrasts between the different political groups and sometimes even in the political groups themselves. Decision now goes back to the national governments and in particular to the European Council, as these three questions are on the agenda of the Heads of State and Government in Lisbon.

The composition of European Parliament

With German unification and the enlargement perspectives of the Community, the question of the number of seats in the EP has become the main theme of discussion among the political forces and governments in Europe.

The Inter-governmental Conference on Political Union - on Germany's request - dealt with this issue, without reaching any agreement; a decision, together with the question of the number of European Commisioners, must still be reached before the end of 1992 and therefore before the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty.

The European Parliament, which in October 1991 was in favour of the increasing in number of the German members after the reunification (cfr. Crocodile Newsletter...), instructed its Institutional Committee to prepare a resolution on this issue. The Institutional Committee nominated as rapporteur Mr. Karel De Gucht (LDR-Bel), having decided to solve in first instance the question of the composition of the seats in the EP, before drafting the proposals on uniform electoral procedure, whose rapporteur is also Mr. De Gucht.

Mr. De Gucht's proposals have prompted lively reactions among the political groups. They were based on the fundamental consideration that it would not be possible to limit the question of distribution of seats in the EP to the increase of its German component (from 81 to 99, according to the resolution passed in October 1991). In view of a relatively quick enlargement and considering the wide-spread fears of a "super-Germany", the rapporteur proposed a system of distribution of seats based on the principle of a "regressive proportionality"; that is to say a system which would allow a certain over-representation in favour of the smaller States and a relative under-representation of the bigger States. The aim was to reconcile the necessity of avoiding the risk of an overcrowded Parliament with the need to keep MEPs close to their electorate. This vision ran into two immediately with two main kinds of criticism.

First, some MEPs (most notably the members of the GUE) thought that it is by no means urgent immediately to find the key for the distribution of seats in an enlarged Community with 15 or 20 Member States because, even if the EFTA countries were to join soon, the number of MEPs would still be acceptable. What is really urgent is to agree on a uniform electoral procedure. Let's then welcome the new 18 German members by the next elections in 1994 and and let's agree as soon as possible on the electoral procedure, without adding further complications to an already very controversial matter.

On the other hand, many MEPs do not go along with the idea of reducing the number of available seats in the EP. Moreover, the German urgency of closing the question of the additional 18 German members as soon as possible convinced their representatives in the Institutional Committee to agree on a compromise apparently able to keep everybody happy, ... by simply raising the global number of MEP, adapting the seats of the smaller States and increasing globally those of the bigger States - excluding Germany - to 18 members: 6 + 6 + 6 = 18

The adoption of this compromise by the Institutional Committe completely abandoned the logic of the De Gucht report, as the principle of "regressive proportionality" was refused and the idea, that the number of seats in the EP could increase beyond 700, accepted.

According to this compromise, the number of MEPs will be 567 after the 1994 elections and, after Austria, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Malta and Cyprus accession, the number of MEPs will be 68 more.

The plenary finally adopted the compromise:

however, the debate and the vote in plenary showed clearly that the subject is pretty controversial: the resolution was in fact adopted with 148 votes in favour, 132 votes against and 83 abstentions.

The new president of the Commission

Announced already during the vote on Maastricht Treaty on 7 April 1992, the EP voted a resolution on the nomination of the President of the European Commission, whose mandate expires on 5 January 1993, together with all the other members of the College.

This initiative of the Socialist Group resulted in the adoption of a resolution signed by most groups, aiming at "anticipating" the procedure agreed in Maastricht: the resolution points out the fact that "the democratic deficit in the EC is partly due to the insufficient participation of the EP in the designation of the President and the members of the Commission"; requests "that the EP be consulted before the governements of the Member States agree on the person they envisage designating as President of the Commission"; resolves "to take a stand both on the name put forward by the Council and on the political guidelines that the new Commission should follow according to the EP in July".

The fact that, during the entire debate on this theme, the incumbent President of the Council hid himself with his staff behind the hemicycle, suggests that the Council is not at all keen on the initiative. So far, it is not known if the Council will consider the wishes of the EP or will go on its own way.

The Union after the Danish "no"

The agenda of the June session contained a vote of the report on the creation of a pan-European order (rapporteur Mr. Klaus Hänsch, SOC-Ger) and a resolution on the nature of the Council (rapporteur Mr. Biagio De Giovanni GUE-It). The Crocodile Newsletter has already informed its readers on these two reports in ....

At the request of the Socialist Group, these two reports were taken off the agenda and postponed to next autumn (probably in September either during the Plenary dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the EP, or after the referendum in France, foreseen beginning of October). The majority of the enlarged EP Bureau considered these resolutions to be "premature" after the result of the Danish referendum. The Assembly therefore had to vote on a resolution , hastly tabled by the Institutional Committee, concerning the European Union after the Danish"no".

This resolution, voted in the Institutional Committee after a very lively debate, restricts itself to confirming again the commitment taken in Oslo by the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the Twelve "to go on with the ratification procedures" as eleven, and declares the opposition of the EP to any re-negotiation of the Maastricht Agreement, but requests the governments to find a solution to the jurico-political "imbroglio" on the occasion of the next European Council in Lisbon. In short: "Go on, as nothing happened, you will certainly find a solution, be with or without the Danes..".

Once again, the Parliament did not give any original political indication on the future of the European integration process, that does not end with the Treaty signed in Maastricht. It missed an opportunity to answer the criticisms and fears which more and more are rising in all the countires of the Community.

Instead, an amendment tabled by the EPP declaring that a constitution is needed to go on with the deepening of the European Union was rejected by a small majority, as well as an amendment tabled by the Greens asking the European Council in Lisbon "to fill the gaps of the Maastricht Treaty concerning the democratic functioning of the EC Institutions".

The resolution was adopted with 238 votes in favour, 55 votes against and 10 abstentions.

Tune in again in July, after the referendum in Ireland and the European Council in Lisbon.

From the Archives of the Crocodile

The Danish "no" to the Maastricht Treaty rises many political and juridical questions on which the States do not want to decide while waiting for the end of the ratification procedures in the other eleven Member States of the EC. One thing is sure: the Treaty - as it was signed in Maastricht - represents a modification of the treaties of Paris and Rome, as well as of the Single Act, adopted on the basis of articles 236 EEC. In order to clarify the juridical "imbroglio" we publish hereunder an article written in June 1983 by professor Jean-Paul Jacqué, now director of the Council Legal Service, and published on issue n·11 of the Crocodile Newsletter of that year.