Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.6.3-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I always enjoy these debates. On the basis of this morning’s debate, I shall miss them! Whether you will miss the British Presidency is perhaps a different judgement altogether, given the comments I have listened to during the last hour-and-a-half!
Mr Farage began his speech by accusing my Foreign Office officials behind me as being both able and ‘treacherous’. I was on the point of jumping to their defence and refuting this allegation, before one of them asked me to say that yes, that was entirely true! We had the ghosts of Christmas past and Robin Hood bumping into the Sheriff of Nottingham in Mr Farage’s contribution. Suffice to say, the kindest thing I can find to say about that particular speech is rather than being a convincing case, it turned into more of a fairy tale.
Mr Kirkhope, who, perhaps in a sign of disrespect to the Presidency, has now left the Chamber – I wonder whether he has returned to his bed rather than got up from it – made perhaps one of his final appearances as part of the EPP before this Chamber. Something of a swansong before being banished to new irrelevance by the incoming leader of the Conservative Party! He suggested that the Presidency would not be able to afford his fees, if he was representing us. I do not know the level of the charge-out rates being sought by the present leader of the Conservative Party in the European Parliament, but I sincerely hope it is not very much, on the basis of the speech we heard this morning!
Mr Voggenhuber did not hold back and accused us of being surrounded by ruins at this stage in our Presidency. He then went on to follow the charge by suggesting that our Presidency proposals were framed by national egotism. This is a serious point, and I think it deserves a serious reply. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the British Presidency sought to succumb to national egotism, it would have been far easier domestically for the United Kingdom and for the British Government to assume an approach which continued to advocate immediate and fundamental change, for example to the common agricultural policy and the wider European Union budget.
It has been a far more challenging route to walk to suggest that, notwithstanding our continuing desire to see more fundamental change in the Union, that there should be a clear recognition of the urgent need to find the resources to fund the costs of enlargement, and that explains the basis of the proposals that we tabled initially last week and the revised proposals that we will table later today.
Mrs de Brún spoke of the need for further work to secure the peace process in Northern Ireland, and on that specific point I listened very carefully to her in relation to the proposals that, in turn, we shall make.
Let me deal, finally and briefly, with the issue of transparency which was taken up by Mr Titley. I was invited to inform honourable Members as to the further progress during the Presidency. I can assure this House, not least on the basis of the strength of opinions articulated within this Chamber on the matter, that we are making continuing efforts to increase the transparency of the Council. We tabled an options paper last month. There are proposals that have now been discussed both in Coreper I and Coreper II, and we continue to hope that the Council will adopt conclusions this month on the important matter of transparency.
However, most honourable Members directed their interventions towards the important issue of future financing. Let those who criticise our proposals today pause, if only momentarily, to reflect on what we may all lose, but particularly the new Member States, about whom a number of honourable Members have spoken. Speaking for just a second as a United Kingdom Minister rather than solely on behalf of the Presidency, let me underline that we are willing to pay our fair share of the budget but not
than our fair share. Back in June, we were asked to make a net contribution of an extra EUR 20 billion or more above and beyond the EUR 50 billion we were already going to pay, or, to put it another way, to make a net contribution about a third more than France as a share of gross national income.
So let me be crystal clear on this point: that was not fair then and it is not fair now. We did not accept it then and we will not accept it this week or, indeed, next year. Instead, for the first time in 30 years of our membership of this European Union – 30 years, in which we have always been a net contributor to the Union – and after years of paying far more than countries of similar levels of prosperity, we intend to make a contribution roughly in parity with similar-sized countries, like France and Italy. We believe that is transparently and eminently fair.
Others have alluded, at least briefly, in this important debate to this week’s other major event: the WTO ministerial meeting taking place presently in Hong Kong. A globally oriented Europe is also one that takes seriously its responsibilities to tackle global poverty, and I once again pay due tribute to a number of honourable Members who have brought this to our attention this morning.
I will not be able to address every single point or charge that has been put to me in the course of the last couple of hours, but I will endeavour to answer some of the specific points that have been put to me by honourable Members.
Following its decisions earlier this year effectively to double the level of development assistance by 2010, this Union needs to take the lead in securing a truly ambitious conclusion to the current WTO trade round. We have in our hands the potential to create a fairer trading global system that will allow hundreds of millions to lift themselves out of poverty. This is no zero-sum game. A fairer global trade system can also act as a spur to the reforms that Europe needs if it is to enhance its competitiveness and deliver on its promises of social justice. We need an outcome to the round, whether in Hong Kong or indeed in the months and years to follow, that is, therefore, pro-poor in the world and pro-jobs in Europe.
Let me finish my contribution to today’s debate, however, by casting our minds back to July when we took over the Presidency. A number of honourable Members have referred to the speech that our Prime Minister made at that time. But let us remember also the context of that speech coming, as it did, soon after the twin rejection of the European Constitution in France and in the Netherlands.
There has been a lot of debate as to the exact significance of those two votes. What, if anything, was wrong with the constitutional draft itself? What were the citizens of Europe telling us about the way in which they wanted the European Union to be run? I would agree with the commentator who said that what we saw in June was the rejection not just of the text but of the context. People in France and in the Netherlands did not have deep-seated objections to a particular subparagraph or clause of the draft Constitution. Rather the basic question, which should still be in our minds today and in our minds during this European Council, which these European citizens were asking, is what did the European Union deliver for them? They were not sure enough about the value added to their lives. They did not know enough about the decisions it made and they had not got the trust in Europe’s politicians to steer the right course. People were uncertain about the broader forces of global change, about the economic challenges facing Europe and what they might mean for them and for their families. Who can blame them at a time when one in ten European citizens today are out of work, in which one in twenty are long-term unemployed?
It is the duty of those who believe fundamentally in social justice to ask how the European Union can be part of a solution to that challenge. The answer to people’s justifiable concerns about change is not, I would argue, to turn inwards, retreating into a politics of anxiety and, indeed, an economics of protectionism. That way offers no solution and, I would argue, no hope. If we are to meet the challenges of today’s world, we must turn outwards with optimism and determination and become a globally oriented Europe. That is what will inspire us in the days ahead.
I can assure you that I will, in turn, pass back the comments that I have received in the course of this morning’s debate to our Prime Minister and to other members of our government ahead of his visit here to Strasbourg tomorrow. I can assure you of our best endeavours in the critical days and hours that lie ahead.
Mr Poettering began the debate with what I judged a rather unworthy charge that I, and the Presidency, had got out of our beds too late. If 4.30 a.m. is judged to be too late, then I apologise unreservedly to this House! In the last 24 hours, more seriously, not only – as you would expect – have I met with our Prime Minister, our Chancellor of the Exchequer and our Foreign Minister as we prepare our revised proposals, but I have also met with the heads of mission in London of every one of the other 24 Member States of the European Union. So I will happily discuss how late we are working and how early we get up, as we endeavour to secure the deal that we believe is necessary for Europe’s future this weekend.
As to the issue that you raised, Mr President, I can assure you that there was no discourtesy intended, nor is any intended now, in relation to the timing of the revised proposals being tabled by the European Presidency later today – not least given the timing of this important debate.
First, these will not be wholly new proposals but will simply be revised proposals, the principles of which I set out in my introductory remarks. Secondly, the charge has been levelled that our Prime Minister is somehow not available for scrutiny on this, the second negotiating box. Our Prime Minister will be coming to Strasbourg tomorrow to hold further discussions with the Conference of Presidents. Thirdly, notwithstanding the criticism that has been directed toward the British Presidency in the course of this debate, I would respectfully reply that, as Mr Titley generously acknowledged, criticism of the Presidency’s engagement with this Parliament is surely not something that deserves to be articulated by honourable Members. My visit today is one of more than 80 visits by British ministers in the course of the British Presidency.
Mr Schulz was brave enough to acknowledge our friendship before this House, so let me further imperil his reputation by saying that I also like and admire him. Let me return the candour with which he spoke to me directly. Mr Schulz, you discussed whether a cut on a rise was still a rise, and spoke of what you described as ‘the new arithmetic’. I should like to be clear that in relation to both the Commission’s proposals and the Luxembourg Presidency proposals, an unfunded offer is no offer at all. We need a deal that commands the support, not simply of those who spend the money, but also of those who contribute the money.
As to the
I accept that trying to secure agreement amongst 25 Member States of this Union does involve a ‘titanic’ challenge, but I believe that it can end in agreement rather than tragedy. In only a few days’ time we will all find out.
To Mr Watson, who said that no deal is better than a bad deal, I certainly find myself on common ground on that particular issue. Although I admire his erudition, his critique of how budgeting should work did rather call to my mind that it perhaps accounts for why the Liberals have now been out of power in the United Kingdom since 1929.
Mr Cohn-Bendit spoke of a vacuum of achievements during the British Presidency. Perhaps he chose to ignore the development agenda, of which a number of honourable Members have spoken in this debate today. Also, given his concern for the environment, I am surprised that he did not pay due tribute to the work of Margaret Beckett, on behalf of the European Union, in persevering to secure agreement during what I judge to have been a hugely significant conference on climate change in Montreal, just last week."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples