The passerelle is a bridge too far…for now

The Finns may have been hoping to invoke the ‘spirit of Tampere’ last week at a meeting of EU justice and interior ministers but instead they seem to have let a rather large genie out of the bottle. Tampere was the birthplace of the blueprint in 1999 which gave the EU greater competence on home affairs and justice matters. The Finnish government and the European Commission nurtured the hope that revisiting the city would help them put justice issues on the same sturdy footing as the internal market or environment.

They hoped to do this by using a clause in the Amsterdam treaty - known as the passerelle - which would see national vetoes lifted on justice legislation, introduce scrutiny by the European Parliament and give the Commission the power to take member states to court over enforcement of these laws.

What they got instead was a sharp rebuff from some member states and unhappy grumblings from others. Only Spain, France, Belgium and Luxembourg joined Finland in supporting the idea.

The reasons for the opposition were varied. Germany is gearing up for its presidency of the Council of Ministers in January and wants to make reviving the constitution a priority. Since the constitution would also lift national vetoes on justice matters, Berlin fears that bringing in the passerelle would reduce support for the constitution. Germany also argues that the process to negotiate and ratify both the passerelle and the constitution would be long and laborious and the idea of doing both at the same time is pointless.

Many states apparently stood behind Germany on these arguments, but at times the pro-federalist stance was lifted to reveal a darker underbelly and doubts about the need to abandon the vetoes.

"Nobody has explained to me yet how this would lead to a quick improvement in decision-making," said Germany’s interior minister, Wolfgang Schaüble.

There was cynicism among some ministers at the Commission’s insistence that the passerelle - as a way of introducing quick and targeted legislation - would help combat terrorist attacks. "No QMV [qualified majority voting] will prevent terrorists from attacking. There is no proposal on the table where QMV will protect people from terrorist attacks or organised crime," Jan Kohout, the Czech ambassador to the EU, said this week (26 September).

Ireland went one step further and questioned giving the Commission more powers. "I wouldn’t be happy to give the Commission the sole right to legislate in this area. The whole criminal justice area is an area of national sovereignty in which there are huge sensitivities," said Ireland’s Justice Minister Michael McDowell.

Some member states are reluctant to surrender a prime bargaining chip which might be needed for re-negotiating the constitution next year. Those with concerns over losing powers over justice matters know they can trade this for other safeguards, just as they did in the original talks for the constitution.

After the ministers’ discussion in Tampere, the Finnish government and the Commission could barely disguise their disappointment. "The EU cannot be paralysed, it cannot lie down and wait for the constitutional treaty," warned Leena Luhtanen, Finland’s justice minister. Franco Frattini, European commissioner for justice, freedom and security, asked: "Can we abandon this passerelle just because we want to have in force as soon as possible a constitutional treaty? My answer, and the answer of many members states is ‘No’."

Nevertheless, the pass-erelle will get only a passing mention at next week’s formal meeting of justice and interior ministers in Luxembourg, with no proposals or compromises to be put forward. "These ministers have made their point clear…getting them to discuss it again might kill it," said one diplomat. It is likely instead to be put before heads of state at the December European Council.

Some still believe that not all is lost for the passerelle. "Germany is key to all of this," said an EU official. "They are chairing the EU next year and it will depend. They may want to offer a gift to the Finnish to say ‘we are really European’."

Equally, if by this time next year there is little movement on the constitution, member states may turn to the passerelle as a way of showing that the European project is still on track. "I wouldn’t put it in its coffin…it might be the only train left in the station come 2007," said Hugo Brady, research fellow with the London think-tank, the Centre for European Reform.

Perhaps then the Commission can put the genie from Tampere back in its bottle.

The Finns may have been hoping to invoke the ‘spirit of Tampere’ last week at a meeting of EU justice and interior ministers but instead they seem to have let a rather large genie out of the bottle. Tampere was the birthplace of the blueprint in 1999 which gave the EU greater competence on home affairs and justice matters. The Finnish government and the European Commission nurtured the hope that revisiting the city would help them put justice issues on the same sturdy footing as the internal market or environment.