A “symbolic case” for Parliament
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
“No one from the Parliament will vote for this if no access to documents is given”, Green MEP Carl Schlyter, referring to one of the key sticking points, told EU Reporter before the issue was debated in plenary.
So far, the Commission has refused to grant Parliament access to key documents relating to member state negotiating positions, something that provoked heated words in the International Trade Committee in February and which led to the formation of a common resolution supported by six of the Parliament’s political groups.
While the key issue is transparency, says Schlyter, post-Lisbon it is important that the Parliament exercises its new rights. “ACTA is a symbolic case” is his assessment.
“Our population does not really trust secret negotiations. We have to assure them on this, that we won’t be bullied by people such as the US into this. Access to documents, and not in a secure reading room, has to be a pre-condition for negotiations”.
Several MEPs across the groups have expressed disappointment at the current situation, which, says Schlyter shows a “lack of trust” on the side of the Commission. If the issue is not resolved, “it will be like SWIFT”.
So far, the Commission’s response has been confusing, he says, with different responses coming from different Commission departments. Some, like the Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström are in favour of full disclosure, while others, such as Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht have suggested that no access will be granted.
“The Commission has to deal with access to documents”, says Schylter. “Originally it was only about transparency, now we have a common resolution, and it is about trust and civil rights”.
“It is absurd that the Parliament doesn’t have access to documents post-Lisbon”.
