Italy puts MEPs in IGC driving seat

Date: 13/03/1997

By Rory Watson

THE European Parliament's verdict on the revised Maastricht Treaty will have a direct effect on its chances of ratification in at least one EU member state.

The Italian parliament, in two separate resolutions, has effectively given MEPs an indirect veto over the future of the treaty text due to be finalised in June.

“The Italian government has confirmed that the country's parliament has taken a decision not to ratify the revised treaty without a positive judgement from the European Parliament. I am sure of that. I think this is very important as it gives MEPs an indirect veto,” explained Italian Socialist MEP Biagio de Giovanni.

While careful to describe the initiative as “a strong political commitment, not a legal pre- condition”, Silvio Fagiolo, Italy's representative at the Intergovernmental Conference, confirmed it was designed to ensure Italian deputies took “full account” of the European Parliament's views.

The move has considerably strengthened the institution's hand in the IGC negotiations. The Parliament is formally excluded from participating in the talks themselves and its endorsement of the final outcome is not legally required under existing EU rules.

Italy attached similar importance to the MEPs' opinion in 1992 when the original Maastricht Treaty was being ratified. At that time, Belgium's house of representatives also insisted it would not support the treaty if it was rejected by MEPs.

Belgium has made no similar pledge this time and several observers are convinced that, given growing public hostility towards the Union, such a commitment is unlikely.

But De Giovanni, who chairs the European Parliament's influential institutional affairs committee, believed it would be “difficult for Belgium to do one thing for the Maastricht Treaty and not do the same for the current IGC”.

Italy's initiative is certainly a rebuff to France and the UK - the only two member states who insisted at the very outset of the IGC negotiations that MEPs could not have a permanent seat at the reform talks.

After the recent clash between Paris and the Parliament over immigration policy, France is likely to take an even dimmer view of the Italian stance.

It is also seen by some critics as an unusual abrogation by a national parliament of its own responsibilities. But De Giovanni disagrees. “It represents a valid judgement of the value of the European Parliament as the only truly democratically representative EU institution,” he insisted.

The changed political climate in the Union has given the latest initiative extra importance. Five years ago the move was considered merely a gesture to the Parliament, but the scenario looks very different this time round.

De Giovanni, whose committee will shape the Parliament's opinion on the new treaty, warned that the outcome of the negotiations had, at least, to give an indication of the way forward to political union.

“I am trying to be a realist. The IGC cannot do everything, but it must give signs of moving in the right direction. An extension of legislative co-decision, a framework for reinforced cooperation and action on justice and home affairs are the three issues on which I believe the Parliament will judge the outcome of the IGC,” he said.

This attempt to place the EU Parliament in such a pivotal position in the IGC has been welcomed by many MEPs, but one critic is Liberal member Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, a member of Belgium's house of representatives during ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.

“In 1992, the house said that if the European Parliament did not like the treaty, it would not ratify it. I do not like a situation whereby my final decision is not my own, but depends on another body, however representative it might be,” she explained.