“A tough blow on democracy”

The European citizens’ initiative “One of Us”, for which almost two million signatures have been collected in EU28 countries, was brusquely “halted” on May 28 by the European Commission, which demanded the interruption of funding for activities implying the destruction of human embryos for research purposes, aid for development projects and in the field of public health. Despite the plethora of signatures collected, the Commission gave a negative reply, on the basis of the fact that Parliament and Council have discussed and decided EU policies in this field only recently. The European Committee that has promoted the initiative is obviously disappointed. Luigi Crimella, for Sir Europe, interviewed the coordinator of the Campaign, Gregor Puppinck, director of the European Centre for law and justice in Strasbourg. Were you expecting a veto on the initiative “One of Us”? “No, I am surprised by the veto. I had hoped that the EU Commission would respect the mechanism of participatory democracy without blocking the way to the most important public initiative of European citizens undertaken so far. I am surprised by the approach of the Commission, that acted both as ‘judge’ and as an ‘interested party’. Indeed, our political initiative was marked by criticism, notably against the funding of abortion practices also in Countries where this practice is outlawed. Now we demand that the issue become the object of public and parliamentary debate. The Commission has decided to erect a ‘dam’ because it wants to defend its policy and have a corner on legislative intervention”. Why are you saying that the Commission cast its vote illegitimately? “The power of evaluating the political opportunity of our initiative belongs to European legislators – i.e., the European Parliament and Council -; it is not the responsibility of the Commission, which is the executive body of the European Union. The powers of the Commission, if it respects participatory democracy, are confined on the one side to an a priori control that ‘initiatives’ such as ours comply with the Treaty and to the verification of the success of the signature collection. If an initiative respects the Treaty and obtains the required popular support the Commission cannot prevent Parliamentary debate. This is abusive”. Furthermore, the decision to place a veto is unjustified: why? “The Commission failed to respond to the serious accusation we made, namely, that it finances and promotes abortions in the framework of its aid to development policies also in Countries where abortion is outlawed”. Why are you saying that the European Commission wants to defend its own “privilege”? “The purpose of the ‘citizens’ initiative’ initiative consisted, for the parliamentarians who designed it, in curtailing the Commission’s monopoly of power over legislative initiatives, while allowing citizens to exercise this right. By adopting an attitude of obstruction the Commission is defending its privilege. There ensues that it intends to be a necessary step for the citizens thereby eliminating any advantage to the mechanism itself and making a caricature of participatory democracy”. Do you still consider it a “hypocritical” and “shameful” decision, grounded on a political, ideological and religious prejudice? “Indeed; there is a political and industrial prejudice above all. The European Commission considers everything from a purely economic angle, whereby the industrial use of human embryos is beneficial for the biotech industry”. Has the One of Us signature collection been useless? “If that was the intention, the Commission should have communicated it to us when we launched the initiative two years ago. With such a powerful political veto, the citizens’ initiative mechanism as a whole has no reason to exist. So my answer is yes, it’s a waste of energy and a deceit from the democratic angle. But now the supporters of the campaign are more numerous, more aware and better organized, and this is not a waste for civil society, it is a waste for European institutions”. What’s the way our from this veto situation? “On our part we intend to continue working with the recently elected European Parliament and with the new Commission. We may eventually file an appeal at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Our commitment remains that of bearing witness to the dignity of human life and we won’t accept to be reduced to silence following an arbitrary decision”.