28 March 2012
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
on access to EU documents:
"Brussels stitch-up" agreed
- Council, Commission and EP Committee agree "compromise/common text"
- Civil society groups reject "deal" between Council and European Parliament
At today's (26 April) meeting of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights all of the amendments put forward by Michael Cashman and Hanji Miaj-Weggen were steamrollered through, without any debate, by the PSE/PPE majority backed by the ELDR (Liberals) on the Committee. Only the Green/EFA, GUE and EDD groups voted against. The vote was 29 votes for 6 against.
The PSE/PPE amendments changed the report adopted by the parliament
on 16 November to meet the demands of the Council (the 15 EU
governments). These amendments were agreed through secret, "trilogue"
meetings over the past five months. So keen were the PSE/PPE
rapporteurs to get the agreement of the Council that a verbal
amendment was allowed (according to which rule nobody knows)
actually during the meeting - deleting the phrase
"according to national arrangements" further weakening the member states right to apply national law on freedom of information.
The only people allowed to speak at the meeting were Commissioner Barnier, who said the College of Commissioners agreed on the "compromise" this morning and Helena Jagerblom, from the Swedish Presidency. She contradicted the Chair of the Committee, Graham Watson, when he said the Council (at the meeting of COREPER, the permanent representatives of EU governments based in Brussels) had agreed the "compromise" by a qualified majority - the Council she said was unanimous in its support for the "common text".
This means that even those countries most opposed to openness, such as France, Spain and Germany, are happy with the "deal".
The amended report now has to be formally adopted by the European Parliament plenary session in Brussels on 3 May. Then the General Affairs Council, probably on 14-15 May, can accept the parliament's amendments to the proposal put forward by the Commission in January 2000.
The "deal" has been condemned by all the civil society groups and leading academic commentators as taking away existing rights and betraying the commitment given in the Amsterdam Treaty to "enshrine" the citizens' right of access to EU documents, see: Civil society "Open Letter"
Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, commented:
"The Brussels-based EU institutions - the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament - have "stitched-up" this deal through secret negotiations instead of going through the proper co-decision process - where the position of each at each stage would be on the record and thus open to public debate.
The "stitch-up" is a betrayal of the commitment given to citizens under the Amsterdam Treaty and the way it was done is a disgrace to democratic standards. It will only increase the resolve of those who want an open, democratic and accountable Europe."
© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X.Material may
be used providing the source is acknowledged. Statewatch
does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one,
the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not
responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion
of a link does not constitute an endorsement.
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.