The German Constitutional Court ruled "an unequivocal 'yes' on the Lisbon Treaty" and the European Parliament is one of the "winners" of that ruling, says the former chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee.

The Interview: Jo Leinen on Germany and the Lisbon Treaty (Extended version)

https://api.multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/documents/20125/14821505/P005-00070-L-EN.srt

As an MEP you are a leading expert   in constitutional matters.

you chaired the Committee   on Constitutional Affairs.

Germany's Federal Constitutional Court   has just passed a long awaited verdict

The reactions in the German media   were positive or even enthusiastic.

The verdict was hailed as a milestone,   a leading decision in terms of democracy.

I'm glad that the Lisbon Treaty   was approved without reservation.

All attacks and complaints   against the treaty were thrown out.

The same complaints   were made in other EU countries,

but much of the criticism is unjustified.

There were claims that the treaty   neglects social issues

and that it paves the way to militarisation.

Exactly. Some people also claimed that   the treaty would undermine democracy,

diminish human dignity   and violate human rights.

However, the Lisbon Treaty   aims to achieve the exact opposite,

and the judges   acknowledged this fact.

The court's unreserved 'Yes' to the   Reform Treaty is very positive indeed.

But aren't there   some negative aspects as well?

Many commentators point to the fact   that although the Lisbon Treaty

was declared fully compatible   with constitutional law,

It states that the German parliament   and the second chamber, the Bundesrat,

have neglected their duty to participate   in the European integration

by failing to adapt   an accompanying German law

which is needed for the implementation   of the Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty aims towards a stronger   participation from national governments.

The European Parliament   is strengthened by the treaty,

but national parliaments   also have certain obligations.

The Federal Constitutional Court has   specified and tightened these obligations.

It pointed out that certain matters   require a vote in parliament,

and sometimes also in the second   chamber, the Bundesrat,

before the German government   can finalise a decision in Brussels.

So the national parliament   has been strengthened considerably.

So far so good.   I think this decision can be welcomed.

The bill introduced to parliament   was deemed insufficient by the court.

Was this an attempt   by the German government

to prevent the parliament from interfering   too much in European Union affairs?

The bill was a compromise between   the government and the parliament.

which was pretty much restricted to   the right of information and consultation.

The Constitutional Court, however,   insisted on the right of participation

and ruled that a mere   information process was not enough.

However, we should also mention   the specific areas

mentions all kinds of   dynamic sounding clauses,

so-called passerelle clauses   or bridging clauses...

Certain matters,   such as justice and home affairs,

The Lisbon Treaty does not embody   a transition to qualified majority voting,

However, there is   a clause within the treaty

that allows the European Council   to decide unanimously

to replace unanimous voting   with qualified majority voting.

For the Constitutional Court,   the bridging clause

forms part of the transfer of authority   from a national to a European level.

It ruled that in all matters   where there is a transfer of authority

a parliamentary vote and approval   is required beforehand.

A subsequent consultation is not enough.

So before the German government   can vote in the Council of Ministers,

it needs the approval of the parliament.

In other countries,   this has long been the norm.

Many national parliaments are much   more involved in the decision making.

The new Swedish Council Presidency   wasn't at all surprised by the verdict,

as this procedure has long   been established in Sweden

There the national parliaments must   approve decisions before EU summits.

The governments   cannot decide on their own.

Do you think   that this is the right approach?

and a stronger parliamentary influence   on European politics,

Less decision making power   for governments,

The problem is that parliaments   can also reject bills,

which means that unanimity   may not always be achieved.

One big advantage which the   Federal Constitutional Court is hoping for

is an improved feedback   of the European debate

to the citizens   of the various Member States.

Since we have so many   different languages in the EU,

we often encounter   communication barriers.

The court wants the national   parliamentary chambers

to become more involved   in European matters.

The idea is that   if they have to approve bills,

they have to concern themselves   with these issues,

which may also raise interest   and awareness amongst citizens.

Some commentators   go even further by saying

that the Danish and Swedish system   is much more efficient

and that a good cooperation   between the national parliaments

and the European Council would abolish   the need for a European Parliament.

I asked the outgoing EP President   if he shared this view,