President of the European Parliament Josep Borrell

Questions: How has your first four months been in the job?

Josep Borrell: Not even four months, just three and a half.  And those months have been busier and more intense then anyone could imagine. It has been very interesting - and it is certainly a full time job!

Question: Do you see your role as different from your predecessors?

Josep Borrell: It is not my role that is different; it is the parliament itself that is different. Because more and more it has increased competences, and it is exerting those competences and really using its influence.

For example, I am chairing a special committee to analyse the financial perspectives. I wanted the European parliament’s president to chair this committee to send a clear signal that this is an issue which has huge political significance for parliament. It is also an issue which cannot be resolved without the agreement of the European Parliament.

Question: Are you sounding a note of caution for those national governments seeking to cut EU spending to one per cent of GNI?

Josep Borrell: We will see. We will see what the committee will decide in the end. I do not want to anticipate the result, because the debate has not been held yet. But it will be a very powerful instrument to send a signal as to whether the parliament is willing to accept some proposals, or not perhaps.  It is also a way of reminding others that without the agreement of parliament there will be no financial perspective.

Question: The new EU constitution will boost the EP’s powers – should MEPs start thinking big now?

Josep Borrell:  It is important to recognise how important, the new competences of the European Parliament will be under the new constitution. These new competences make the parliament a full co-legislator with the council. I believe that - more than MEPs - it is is public opinion and governments who should be "thinking big" about the parliament.  At the very least, we can be sure that no one will say that the European Parliament is just a paper tiger anymore after the hearings for the commission.

Question: You want to give parliament a lead role in the EU constitution debate across Europe – how do you see this happening?

Josep Borrell: Parliament will draft a resolution, we are drafting it now.  And before the first referendum, which be held in Spain at the end of January, the parliament will adopt a formal position after a democratic debate.  It would be surprising if the European Parliament, as a representative institution of European citizens, were not to set out its opinion on the European constitution. We will transmit our position to national governments, and in all our work we will co-operate very closely with national parliaments.

Question: If one or more countries vote no is that the end of the constitution, what do think should happen if democratically one or more countries say no?

Josep Borrell: This time it will be much more difficult to ask the same question again, to say: “you have said no, well think a little bit about that and I’m going to ask you again” – like what happened in Denmark, in Ireland, in the past. This time the issue is much more difficult and in any case if a country or several countries say ‘no’ the Treaty can not be applied automatically.  What has been foreseen is that the heads of state and government will meet and talk about the situation. It is the least they can do.

Question: Will the European Parliament suggest in its draft resolution some options should there be a ‘no’ in a referendum?

Josep Borrell: No, I don’t think so. The role of the parliament is, I think, to concentrate its efforts on producing a resolution on the constitution itself and not on what to do if the constitution is not approved.

Question: Many new commissioners, during their hearings, pledged to “act in the spirit” of an EU constitution before ratification: is this right? Before EU citizens have spoken?

Josep Borrell: Let's be absolutely clear about this: if some provisions are being applied ahead of ratification it is in order to demonstrate that the Constitution represents a step forward for the EU. I am convinced that at least one part of our fellow citizens will correctly assess the value of having an EU Foreign Minister active on the international stage. Given their concerns regarding immigration, I am convinced that they will be reassured by the European Council's decision that from now on it will take action in the immigration sphere by a qualified majority, under the codecision procedure with Parliament. Given that this "early application" policy is designed to remedy the democratic deficit inherent in the existing Treaties, I see it as an argument which might usefully be developed in some referendum campaigns.

Question: Spain is withdrawing troops from Iraq: is this just a national question or are there any wider lessons for Europe as a whole?

Josep Borrell: Countries will extract whatever conclusions they might see as pertinent from the example of the Spanish government. I am sure the Spanish government doesn’t want to give any lessons to anyone.  It is a national question that was explicitly set out in the programme which the Socialist Party presented during the election campaign. Since Mr Zapatero received very strong support in the elections, he then carried out what he committed himself to do.

Question: EU divisions over Iraq simmer on: can these rifts be healed?

Josep Borrell: The rifts should be healed, but at the moment they are not. I think everybody, more or less, is sticking to the same positions they adopted before the war. It would be a very good thing for Europe, and for the Trans-Atlantic relationship, if we could start with a common strategy on how to deal with the situation which has been created.  It would be a very important achievement, but it does not appear to be an easy thing to do. I believe we should not reproduce the discussion we had before the war, because that is the past, but rather face today’s realities.

Question: George W Bush won – again! Does this result illustrate a cultural divide between EU and US citizens? If there is such a divide, what can the European Parliament do about it?

Josep Borrell: The European Parliament can not do anything to influence the results of the American elections.  It can not and it would want to do so either. It is not its role.  In the American elections the American people, and only the American people, vote. We must respect the result. If we look at the opinion polls, it seems clear that a lot of Europeans would have preferred to do business with another candidate - to have had Mr Kerry as president. But we must make a real effort to try to establish a dialogue with the American administration whatever the decision of the American people.

Perhaps there is a divide in terms of the values on which our societies base themselves. For example, the States is still practising the death penalty, something which is unacceptable for European Union members.  From this point of view the US could not become a member of the EU.  This is just an example of how our concept of values can differ and how that can affect the way things are done. But, perhaps, within American society they have the same cultural divide that exists between the US and the EU.

Question: What is happening with parliament’s challenge to EU-US transfers of air passenger name records?

Josep Borrell: The matter is before the Court of Justice, which has just received the Council's and the Commission's pleadings. If everything moves forward quickly it could be debated early in 2005 and a decision could be taken before the end of 2005, when the first annual verification of the EU-USA agreement on PNRs is carried out. Between now and then parliament will take steps to ensure that the rights of passengers and of European citizens in general in the sphere of data protection are not disregarded, in particular in the context of other international agreements and, more specifically, in the current ICAO negotiations on PNRs, biometrics, etc.

Question: Spain (and other national governments) has backed a similar scheme for the EU: Where do you stand on the issue?

Josep Borrell: The similarities are quite superficial. The European directive which Spain has proposed covers only data on the identity of passengers, not on their behaviour, origins, religion, etc. Moreover, it stipulates that such data may not be retained once security checks have been carried out. In other words, unlike in the American case we are not dealing with the indiscriminate, if temporary, storage of personal data. Moreover, in Europe, unlike in the USA, any misuse of this power would be examined by independent national authorities on the basis of legal rules which do not exist on the other side of the Atlantic.

Question: Is the civil liberties balance in the EU’s own war on terrorism about right?

Josep Borrell: In Parliament's view, efforts should have been made to strike this balance in the immediate aftermath of September 11. That was our argument during the discussions on the framework decision on combating terrorism and on the European arrest warrant. I am delighted that, at its meeting of November 5, the European Council made efforts to strike a balance between combating terrorism and protecting civil liberties one of its key concerns. We will take every possible step to ensure that the relevant decisions are adopted as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the Council must act unanimously, which may take time, and this procedure is not covered by codecision with the European Parliament.
Had it so wished, the European Council could have decided to employ the "passerelle" system, as it did in the immigration sphere, and policy in this area as well would now be based on a procedure covered by codecision.

Question: Is there a lesson from last year’s Madrid attack? Is the answer more crackdowns? More surveillance?

Josep Borrell: The lesson is that since 9/11, and even more so since 3/11, internal security is no longer a problem specific to each Member State, but rather one which affects the Union as a whole and that, in the face of such a challenge, we need strategies which are both effective and respectful of the rights of European citizens. Although measures have been taken, they do not go far enough, partly because, as we must acknowledge, there are differences in the way this problem is analysed by foreign ministers and by interior ministers. The former have grasped the need for European action, whereas the latter, with a few exceptions, prefer to take action at national level. We need to take the right decisions quickly, but I doubt that this will be possible prior to the ratification of the Constitution, which introduces decision-making by a qualified majority and, hence, codecision with the European Parliament.

Question: Are you personally happy with compulsory fingerprints for all EU citizens via a biometric passport?

Josep Borrell: As you are no doubt aware, this is a requirement imposed by the US authorities. The Council has fallen into line with them, whereas our parliamentary committee would have preferred a different approach. It will continue to debate this matter, weighing up the pros and cons of an option whose implications, including its technological implications, have still to be fully assessed. As things stand, the matter has not yet been officially referred back to Parliament.

Question: Mr Buttiglione’s view on homosexuality is probably that of a large minority or even a majority of Europeans – especially in Catholic countries – do you think his opinions really ruled him out of the job?

Josep Borrell: The fact that many Catholics might agree with his views that homosexuality is a sin, according to their own religion, that is not surprising. Mr Adenauer, Mr Delors or Mr Prodi might have been just as Catholic as Mr Buttiglione is, and they never had any problems because of their religious beliefs. The problem with Buttiglione was not his religious beliefs, because many Catholics, just as Catholic as he is, have never had any problems. The problem was not only related to homosexuality, there were also opinions on women, in the family and at work, which were quite shocking for a number of deputies. Just put to put a counter example, if Mr Erdogan, who I think is not a Catholic, had come to Brussels and said the same thing that Mr Buttiglione said then Turkey would not have improved its chances of becoming a member of the EU.
The parliament has not discriminated against anyone for religious reasons, this is the reality, someone could try to present it this way but it is not all the reality.

Question: It is almost certain that other commissioners hold similar but private views: is it hypocrisy to rule somebody out because he or she declares what they think? Could an openly Italian Christian Democrat hold the justice post?

Josep Borrell: I don’t see why not. It is nothing against Italians, it is nothing against Catholics. It is nothing against Christian Democrats. It is nothing against nationality or beliefs. It is a matter of the capacity, which the parliament has to measure, of someone to perform well in a certain post. It was understood that Mr Buttiglione had performed badly. But once again it is not a question of Catholicism, if a Muslim had said the same things, it would have produced the same reaction.
And we should not limit the problem of the commission to Mr Buttiglione’s case because there were some very severe doubts over at least four other commissioners. And there have been changes in order to satisfy some of the doubts that some of the parliament’s political groups had expressed. To speak only of one commissioner specifically would be to reduce the scope of the situation. I understand it is probably more interesting for the news but it is not totally accurate.

Question: Commentators have observed that Bush won the US election because of the ‘gay marriage’ question – could MEPs be ignoring a European ‘moral majority’ who hold similar views to Mr Buttiglione? Is there a possibility of a European ‘culture war’, as they call it in America, between people who hold religious values and people who hold secular values?

Josep Borrell: I truly believe that the point of reference of the parliamentary debates is the values that are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We clearly stipulate that non-discrimination against anyone because of their sexual choice and equality are fundamental values of the Union. This is something that has been discussed in depth but is also been accepted widely. I prefer to make reference to that and not to a European ‘moral majority’ that I do not know who has defined, where or when. Europe is extremely diverse. The same day Mr Buttiglione was at his hearing, the Spanish government was approving the law allowing gay marriages, probably this would not be feasible in some countries. In some countries same sex couples can adopt children, but in others this is far from being accepted. In some countries in Europe divorce is very difficult to obtain – although legal. In others it is quite normal. In some countries voluntary termination of pregnancy is forbidden, in others it is very much accepted. So we have a strong variety of points of view in Europe about these questions, I prefer to refer to the texts where have established our common values. But for sure it is quite a warning that the religious question is coming to the fore. I think it will be a matter of discussion in the years to come.
We should accept there are a variety of points of views and avoid the religious wars that have marred Europe’s past.

Question: Has the Barroso commission cemented inter-institutional relations or damaged them? Is there a danger the new commissioners will now view MEPs suspiciously or defensively?

Josep Borrell: This is a very important question. I am sure that new members of the commission will look at the parliament with full respect. Nobody will say the hearings are just a formality that we live through but then that at the end, don’t worry, the result will be OK. This is a big step forward, perhaps the most important result of what has happened is that the parliament has won a lot of credibility. Sooner or later it was going to happen, sooner or later the parliament was going to use the powers the Treaties have conferred on it. You can not give power to an institution subject to the condition that it will never use it.
If a school said ‘you have to pass an exam but don’t worry you will always pass because if not the college will be brought into crisis’. What would you think about that?
The EU and the parliament need a strong commission. We need both, a credible parliament and a strong commission. A commission that has been approved by a tiny majority would not have been a strong commission. I think it is much better for everyone, even for the commission, to come with another proposal and to get strong support from the parliament.

Questions: In terms of your relations with Mr Barroso, have they been cordial…?

Josep Borrell: I think they have been cordial, very positive, constructive. We have been talking to each other, saying what each of us thought when things were not going very well. We have been maintaining a very constructive dialogue. This has been necessary in institutional terms because Mr Barroso has been talking a lot with the political groups. Perhaps not enough with some of them, and some of them have even complained. But I think that the relationship is a very good one and will remain so during mine, and his, term in office.

Question: How did Mr Barroso get it so wrong? Was there a failure of political judgement?

Josep Borrell: Mr Barroso, it was his duty, to try to rescue the proposal he had made, for the composition of the commission, believing perhaps that at the end the European Parliament would not be able to refuse the commission as a whole because they disagreed with two or three commissioners. In fact this was the key question that Mr Barroso formulated in the plenary, he said: “Do you believe disagreement with a few commissioners can justify the refusal of the entire commission?”. And, while parliament did not respond, it did not get to that point, it was clear that, seemingly, the answer would have been “Yes”.

Question: Political groups came to the fore during the Barroso Commission debate, in particular the Socialists, in quite a new way. Do you think it is possible that this means parliament will be more political in right and left terms?

Josep Borrell: One of the collateral effects of what has happened, in the political life of the parliament, in my view, is the fact that the political groups have re-affirmed themselves, and perhaps they have also succeeded in achieving more internal cohesion through this. Or as it is the case with the ALDE, they have had an internal debate on an issue, beyond nationality. This could probably be good for a parliamentary democracy that would be based on trans-national ideological currents of thought. If MEPs are only a transmission belt for instructions given by governments this would not be a Europe with a double legitimacy: the national one, the governments, expressed through the Council and the one of the citizens, expressed through the parliament.

Question: Finally, if political groups become more ideologically cohesive will that mean the end the end of technical agreements; like that divides your mandate between Socialists and the EPP?

Josep Borrell: I do not believe so because the agreement to share the presidency of the European Parliament is a technical type of agreement. It does not imply agreement on a programme or whatever may happen during the legislature. And if one day one group has enough strength to have one president for the whole of one period perhaps they will do so. But what has happened has also shown the difference between a procedural type of agreement, strictly technical, in order to divide a five year period and questions of principle. And in fact the groups have disagreed, profoundly, deeply, as they did in the commission case.

• Previous article
• Next article