The planned end of WEU (and its assembly)? (following)

(BRUSSELS2) The timetable is being confirmed for the denunciation of the WEU Treaty (Western European Union) and its Assembly, which were at the beginning of the Europe of defense (even if the effectiveness has not always been there). So if on the Belgian side, no decision has yet been taken, the Kern (restricted council of ministers bringing together the tenors of the coalition) meets on Friday with this question on its agenda. And, on the British side, the decision could also be taken on Friday or, at the latest, next week, I have been confirmed. The financial argument has apparently also played on the British side. " How to continue spending 2,3 million euros a year on an institution that duplicates another a diplomat explained to me.

On the one hand, management issues : How to transfer or liquidate the assets of the WEU, the premises of the assembly in particular (which are in Paris)? What about the budget (the States would like to see it deleted without discussion)? What to do with the staff afterwards (reclassification in the EU, in the States, early retirement, etc.). Some of the staff is, in fact, no longer very young.

On the other hand, more political questions arise, in particular: how to concretely involve national parliamentarians in the work of Parliament. This is the application of the Lisbon Treaty protocol. But, as always, the devil is in the detail: where will we meet? Who will chair the meeting? At what pace? So many questions that remain to be answered. But the contribution of national deputies - in terms of defense - is very valuable, not only because it remains a national competence. But because, very often, they are real specialists in defense issues. And in the European Parliament, this specialty is totally neglected.

So there is work to do. And there won't be enough of a year to devote ourselves to settling all these material and political questions.

The contribution of national deputies : essential. Apart from a few hand-picked interventions and goodwill, speeches in the European Parliament are, in fact, more of a coffee shop or a press review than knowledge of files. I have seen it several times. And this observation does not seem isolated. A young parliamentarian, specialist in defense issues, confirmed this to me: The interventions of my colleagues are not always up to the challenges he told me. As for the role of the European Parliament in matters of security and defence, it remains very limited today compared to the practice of many countries (Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden, in particular) and compared to evolution that the PeSDC has taken. It is of course due to the treaties themselves which limit the role of deputies. But not only. There is a certain reluctance, or a certain sluggishness with regard to certain questions. This democratic deficit is particularly blatant in the defense industry – the recent examples of the A400M, the US tanker market, financial or technical equipment problems bear witness to this – and, even more so, in operations. The importance of the European commitment in Afghanistan (EUPOL, IFAS) or in Somalia (EUNAVFOR Atalanta, EUTM) deserves closer parliamentary monitoring. The example of the transfer of piracy suspects is obvious.

The example of pirate transfer agreements. While the European Parliament has positioned itself as a defender of public freedoms on several occasions (transfer of "passenger" data to the USA, Swift contracts, etc.), agreements for the transfer of suspected pirates in the Indian Ocean have been concluded without parliamentary control. It's better for efficiency. It's a shame for democracy. Perhaps it would be worth looking for a formula that combines the two (speed and transparency)? Why not look for a method similar to what the European Court of Justice has done, establishing for crucial civil liberties issues a "rapid" procedure allowing a judgment to be obtained in a few weeks. One could thus conceive of the European Parliament giving an opinion, within the same timeframe, on a fairly simple document beforehand what is a pirate transfer agreement. Admittedly, Parliament does not normally have the opportunity to comment on international agreements made in the area of ​​security and defence. But, unless I am mistaken, the transfer of persons accused of a reprehensible offense at the judicial level does not arise from questions of security and defense but from questions of public freedom...