Agence Europe: What do you think of the Greens-EFA Group's action in the current European Parliament?

Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Our group was at the heart of an issue of great concern to all of Europe - what strategy to take against climate change. Our group was at the heart of debate on all human rights issues and tried to find a common position with other forces at the EP on immigration and social issues in order to give Europe a different colour from that imposed by the majority at the Council and the European Commission.

Monica Frassoni: That means that we are working in a more complicated context than in the past. In terms of how the Community institutions function, we have seen a very strong offensive from industrial lobbies, stronger than we ever experienced in the past, and we also have a more difficult situation in relation to rights, immigration etc. We have continued the conditions for initiatives and success.

Agence Europe: And on the legislative front?

M.F.: I think we can certainly mention REACH. Without us, what was achieved would not have been achieved, which was not so very much of course. The same goes for the energy package, on which two of the rapporteurs are Greens (Ed: Claude Turmes of Luxembourg and Satu Hassi of Finland). There is also everything connected with "rights", all the discussions on China, human rights and avoiding regrettable excesses in terms of security in discussions about immigration, even though in that connection, the results are rather more mixed when it comes to the Passenger Name Record directive and the whole question of aircraft, and the role of the Parliament (where there is, after all, a centre-right majority on immigration and rights issues).

D.C.-B: We demonstrated our political capacity as a group through our organisation of a majority for the Sakharov Prize this year, Hu Jia.

Agence Europe: What have been the main successes of the European Parliament for you?

M.F.: I would start with what I believe was a serious defeat - the question of the constitution. In this term of the Parliament, there have been resounding defeats and the lack of pro-activity and ability to apply pressure for initiatives after the referendums in France and the Netherlands is certainly a factor that I see as a defeat for the Parliament as a whole. We clearly took a totally different position, but I feel this fact should be underlined.

D.C.-B.: The second defeat at the Parliament, or problem with the Parliament, is that we see a re-nationalising of the debate in the other groups, in other words, the core members of other political groups often play the national card. We can see this with the energy package with German Social Democrats and the German EPP. We see it at all levels, unfortunately, where many political forces at the EP put national interests ahead of common European interests.

M.F.: Have there been any successes? We'll wait and see what will happen in December but all the same, the debate over the energy package is still in the hands of the European Parliament for the moment and we reject its re-nationalisation. I also think that on the question of human rights and rights in general, the Parliament has achieved victories or important steps in this term. I am not sure they will be maintained in the next term.

Agence Europe: Does debate on the climate and energy package risk being re-nationalised against the backdrop of the economic recession?

D.C.-B.: That's the rub. Starting with the Stern Report and all the other reports, we will end up paying more if we delay. If we say that there are financial problems, it's true. But if we are able to drum up funding to save the banks, as was required, there is therefore also the ability to invest and save. If we are not able to invest against deterioration of the climate as well, we will have to pay far more in the future. I believe that this is where we have to hold firm. We have to explain to everyone that politicians have to take their responsibilities seriously. There is a confluence of crises and we can't deal with them one by one.

Agence Europe: What do you think of the action of the Barroso Commission?

D.C.-B: The Commission in general has a problem. The Commission has focussed on initiative capacities and market regulation and has been totally contradicted by events. We have a Commission today that is moving forward in the fog, but it cannot be criticised for that. However, it doesn't reflect on any of the errors it has made. What we don't understand about the Commission is how it views its partial responsibility with respect to what is going on. Take, for example, the fact that McCreevy and Barroso refused to consider regulation of the financial markets a year ago.

M.F.: This idea of the Commission as a secretariat for the Council is something we have been denouncing for a long time, but Barroso was put there for that purpose. Behind it is the idea that the Commission is there to serve the member states, some more than others, and here too there is necessarily a re-nationalisation. It jumps out at you. When Barroso keeps telling us that in order to take any initiative, you have to wait and see whether a majority of member states can be brought together, it is clear that he is abandoning his ability to take initiatives. We have seen this on several occasions. For example, even though we managed to get him to agree to act differently, he did this for the anti-discrimination directive and other important initiatives too. I think the Better Regulation issue should be seen from this perspective, and the same with the environment, where resistance is quite strong from the Commission unless there is prior agreement among industrial lobbies and the member states.

Agence Europe: What will be your group's priorities for 2009-2014?

D.C.-B: Continuing on from what we just said about being at a confluence of different crises, the top priority will be for the European Union to take the initiative on what we call a New Green Deal, a grand plan for an ecological economic renewal and huge investment in information, education and research. I believe these are the pillars, the priorities, that we will be defending on the stump and during the next European Parliament.

Agence Europe: In this connection, is Barack Obama's election good for the EU?

D.C.-B: Obama is good for the United States but we shouldn't forget that he is the president of the United States, not Europe. Obama's election is only good if we have a Europe that takes strong views, that is a partner capable of negotiating with anyone who wants to negotiate. But let us stop thinking of Obama now and think instead of what Europe is becoming.

Agence Europe: Does it seem to be agreed that Jose Manuel Barroso will continue as President of the European Commission, unless he changes his mind?

D.C.-B: It's a political debate. We personally oppose the idea of Barroso continuing in the job.

M.F.: The idea would be to have a different majority from the one we have now with the "big coalition". We hope that all the attacks that the Socialists are making against the Commission will result in an open debate, with us rather than all alone, on who should head the European Commission, because very often people keep criticising and then end up voting in favour so it's all really rather pointless.

Agence Europe: What about the potential for a renewal of the EPP-ED and PES agreement to share the chairing of the EP?

M.F.: It depends on who wins the elections.

D.C.-B: We'll see. I personally believe there is a strong tendency at the EPP to do a deal with the Liberals. People should realise that Graham Watson already sees himself as...

M.F.: Pat Cox II!

D.C.-B: He already sees himself as President of the Parliament. People who listen behind the scenes can do so but we will see. There are several possible scenarios at the European Parliament.

Agence Europe: It is almost certain that the Lisbon Treaty will not be in force when the European elections are held. Will that be a problem?

M.F.: We have not given up on it coming into force.

D.C.-B: For many countries, having the European elections with the Nice Treaty is a problem due to the loss of MEPs etc. I believe that the non-ratification of the Lisbon Treaty raises enormous issues for the European elections.

M.F.: I would also add that we are making the same mistakes as we made after the referendums in France and the Netherlands, in other words we are making the mistake of not doing anything, of hiding away, of waiting rather than acting. I personally cannot see why it's better to have a referendum in Ireland in October rather than March. But clearly, it should not be done without preparation. Immediately after (Ed: the Irish No vote), we should have started a true campaign, which the government refused to do. (A.B./transl.fl)

COPYRIGHT AGENCE EUROPE