Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-26-Speech-3-183"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051026.17.3-183"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, on behalf of the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, I thank you for this opportunity to address Parliament on the wide range of issues that we have covered in the course of our afternoon, looking ahead to the informal meeting of Heads of Government that will take place at Hampton Court tomorrow.
Mr Mote, who appears to have left the Chamber – perhaps that was a reflection on how I have sought to answer his questions in the past – raised the very specific question of corruption. The Presidency is working with the Commission and other Member States on the Commission’s paper ‘Roadmap towards a positive statement of assurance’, a package of measures to reform the Commission’s accounting system, making it easier for the Court of Auditors to give the accounts a clean bill of health. Our hope is to see agreement at the November meeting of Ecofin.
Mr Karas sought an ‘open and public debate’. I would argue that what we saw today in Parliament was exactly that: a frank debate on the importance of a range of issues ahead of the Hampton Court meeting. On other issues, specifically competence over universities and future financing, I listened with care to the very specific points that he was making from his own group’s point of view.
Mrs Dührkop Dührkop recognised the need for discussion on direction with reference to the issue of future financing, but again I would simply reiterate that we are very clearly of the view that the right sequence is to have the direction of Europe set before the future financing issue is addressed.
I sense some scepticism from colleagues in Parliament as to the viability of that process. Again, I would simply recollect a previous British Presidency in 1992, where Presidency proposals on future financing were tabled in the November prior to a deal being agreed in December. Mrs De Sarnez raised the same question. She claimed that it would be very difficult for us to resolve the budgetary issue. I would simply reiterate that, if we are not able to resolve the question of the future direction of Europe, it makes the challenge of resolving the future financing of Europe commensurately more difficult.
In relation to Mrs Lambert’s points, specifically on climate change, let me be very direct in terms of the progress that we wish to see. We wish to build consensus around the threat of climate change and the need for urgent action to tackle it. That is why on 17 October the Environment Council, under our Presidency, agreed an initial European Union position for the United Nations climate change negotiations in December. We are keen to provide a solid foundation of work for the European Union’s medium- and long-term climate change strategy, and a range of Council formations and the European Union’s external summits are contributing to that end.
Finally, we seek agreement on the need for cost-effective, flexible solutions to tackle emissions from EU aviation and, as the Presidency, we welcomed the recent study commissioned by the Commission, which recommends emissions trading as the best solution. We are planning an initial discussion at the December Environment Council on these issues.
Mr Piotrowski and Mr Szymański both spoke about the challenge of globalisation and raised important issues that I think will inform the discussions taking place with Heads of Government tomorrow at Hampton Court.
Mr Van Hecke raised points on Turkey with which, with the greatest of respect, I simply disagree. I speak not only on behalf of the Presidency, but I am glad to say a unanimous General Affairs Council, which was consistent with the previous undertakings agreed at the December 2004 European Heads of Government meeting and was able to open those accession talks for full membership of Turkey back on 3 October. Mrs Grossetête acknowledged, I am glad to say, the precise historic significance of that point and of the opening of accession talks with Turkey. But in seeking, I sensed, to criticise the British Presidency, she said: ‘We cannot put Europe together with dreams’. I would respectfully suggest that we have much more hope of building Europe in the direction we would wish if we do so on the basis of our hopes and dreams, rather than simply our memories and our past achievements.
As our Prime Minister very eloquently put it in his summation of today’s debate, if you look at the future challenges that Europe faces, whether on the issue of climate change or the issue of securing prosperity and sustaining social protection in the face of the challenge of globalisation, it is not difficult to make a case for the importance of Europe’s work over the coming 50 years. I therefore do not think it is inimical to the interests of Europe to consciously assert the future challenges that we face. I would argue that it is a surer foundation on which to build popular support for Europe than a simple recitation of past achievements.
Mr Titley generously recognised and acknowledged the work of the Presidency with Parliament. I am not sure whether the current attendance in Parliament is a reflection on the relative interest in the Prime Minister’s remarks and those of Britain’s Europe Minister, but nonetheless I am grateful and will pass back to my fellow ministers his kind words. Equally, I am grateful to him for recognising the point I have sought to make already in my contribution, which is the truly historic significance of the opening of accession talks with Turkey. I was also very glad and grateful to hear the honourable Member raise the broader issue of Africa and the important work that has been taken forward under the British Presidency in relation to that issue of major international concern.
Not least because of the timing of this afternoon’s debate and discussion, it has been, I would argue, both a timely and a useful debate on the strategic issues facing Europe in the years ahead. These are issues that go to the very heart of how Europe faces up to globalisation and, as our Prime Minister concluded, both the threats posed by globalisation and, just as significantly, the opportunities.
In that regard, I would emphasise the importance that the Presidency, alongside the Commission, attaches to the important work that still has to be done in relation to development issues at the vital World Trade Organization talks in Hong Kong in December, towards the end of the British Presidency.
All of us who during the British Presidency have worked so hard to secure further action on both debt relief and on aid payments now see this as being a vital and important opportunity which must be grasped if we are to make progress on the third vital area for development, which is of course the issue of trade.
Mr Geremek also raised the issue of future financing and let me say very directly that, in the light of what our Prime Minister has reiterated today, I do not think it is the appropriate stage for us to be discussing the compensation being offered to new accession countries, the so-called A 10, given the failure to reach agreement on future financing. Now is the opportunity to rededicate ourselves and commit ourselves to the genuine endeavour of securing agreement on future financing, which of course is important to the country holding the Presidency and indeed every Member State. But I recognise that it is particularly important to those Member States that have joined the European Union recently.
Mr Mayor Oreja asked broad questions about Europe’s future role and, specifically on the question of terrorism, wondered whether we would be able to translate the broader areas of work set out by our Prime Minister into action. Again, I would suggest to Members of this House that is exactly why we have commissioned the paper – in order to translate those broad areas of work into concrete achievement in due course.
Mr Barón Crespo raised the question of the constitutional treaty, which provides me with the opportunity of reinforcing one of the original ideas behind the Hampton Court meeting, which this discussion anticipates. We were very clearly of the view, in the light of the decisions reached by the voters in France and the Netherlands, that it would be the wrong response simply to mechanistically continue a discussion of institutional architecture, when in fact probably the most accurate description of the vote – certainly in France and I would respectfully suggest also in the Netherlands – was that it related to both the text and the context. It would be wrong for us therefore simply to have addressed the question of the text when there is the broader question of how Europe is engaging with globalisation, to which our citizens are demanding an answer. That remains the inspiration and the intention behind the meeting that will take place tomorrow.
Mr Tajani raised a number of important points, as did Mrs Roure. Let me end, however, by reiterating the importance of the point made by Mr Saryusz-Wolski, namely, the issue of future financing. As I say, I have sought to make clear on the floor of this House today the importance that we attach to finding agreement on future financing if we can at the December Council.
However, in support of that contention let me also mention the letter our Prime Minister, as President of the European Union, sent to his colleagues inviting them to join him at Hampton Court tomorrow. He said, and I quote: ‘I know that a number of colleagues are concerned to know how the Presidency plans to take forward the future financing negotiations. We have consulted widely and I believe there is a collective will to reach agreement in December. President Barroso has issued some new ideas on how to kick forward that work’.
I believe that the letter sent by Prime Minister Blair to his fellow Heads of Government makes very clear the sincerity of our commitment to reach agreement if we can and also the importance of the sequencing that I have suggested.
Mr President, I am grateful once again for the opportunity to respond to this important and timely debate. I feel sure that tomorrow’s meeting at Hampton Court will be a real and important opportunity for Member States to send a message of both unity and collective endeavour and to demonstrate the European Union’s key role in responding to the challenges about which we have heard so much today.
The United Kingdom Presidency, be clear, is keen to find a consensus on that future direction of Europe and to see that the views expressed here today by Members of this House are reflected in proposals in this area. I pay tribute to the leaders of all the political groupings we have heard from today for setting out their views so clearly and directly. I should also like to thank President Barroso for his contribution to the discussion. The substance of his input, together with the Commission paper to which he referred – the paper on European values in a globalised world – are testament to the extent to which Member States and the Commission share a common vision and, indeed, a common sense of urgency with regard to the important issues facing us today.
I would ask Parliament’s understanding if I do not respond to every specific point raised during the course of this long but important debate. Instead, let me try to address the main themes that were raised by as many of the speakers as time allows.
With the greatest of respect, I fear that Mr Kirkhope’s remarks reflect the risks of writing a speech in reply to a speech that you have not yet heard, in the sense that he was questioning the commitment of the Presidency in terms of the specifics that would be taken forward. Our Prime Minister made very clear, on behalf of the Presidency, not just the significant achievement relating to Turkish accession – about which I will say more in a moment – but also the importance of sequencing the debate about the future of Europe with the issue related to future financing of Europe. On his specific query as to where that would leave Britain’s national interest, I would simply tell this Parliament that the challenge facing Britain is the same as any Presidency, that we need to seek consensus across Europe, as I have suggested, but that consensus will necessarily and appropriately include the British national interest.
Mr Désir raised important issues in relation to energy infrastructure and universities. I certainly noted with interest the points raised in relation to the services directive. Those are just some of the contributions that will inform our ongoing discussion of that issue.
Mrs Koch-Mehrin, who appears to have left her place in the Chamber, talked of the importance of other priorities alongside R[amp]D and in particular the issue of transparency, which has been raised both within this Chamber and in a number of other fora involving our Prime Minister today. Again, I would report to this House that there was a formal discussion amongst the Permanent Representatives of the issue of transparency on 19 October. We made clear at the outset of our Presidency that we were keen to seek to make some progress on this issue, and that progress is ongoing. However, the discussions have already begun, as was shown by the debate held at COREPER on 19 October.
Mr Hudghton raised, in the characteristically warm style for which he is famed, the claim that the British Presidency had made no progress whatsoever. I will merely point out that the prospect of Turkish accession has been held out to the Turkish people for 42 years. It ill behoves anybody in this Chamber, whether they are for or against Turkish accession, to undermine the historical significance of what was achieved back in Luxembourg. Given my responsibilities in answering for the Presidency today, I will resist the very great temptation to engage with him on the range of issues that, as a Scottish nationalist, he sought to bring to the attention of Parliament today. I would simply say – and I do so as a fellow, proud Scot – that the contribution he made to this debate today would not easily be confused with a ray of sunshine.
In reply to Mr Bonde, I hope that I have addressed his point about transparency already. In relation to Ms Angelilli’s point, questioning whether there is enough commitment to seek a deal on future financing, I would simply reiterate the points that our own Prime Minister made earlier in our discussions today, making it clear that we believe both that it is necessary to have the discussion on the future of Europe at Hampton Court tomorrow, and that this discussion is an essential prerequisite for the progress that we are determined to try and make in relation to future financing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples