Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.6.3-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, with all due respect, this happens almost every time I sum up a debate! It is better that Members of Parliament are coming in, rather than going out when I start to speak, but, if I may make a suggestion, maybe it would be a good idea in future to come up with another system to avoid disruptions to debates directly preceding the vote.
I hope, however, that this will not be the highlight of the British Presidency ...
and that we will have a major success in the Council tomorrow and afterwards. We sincerely hope for more.
How can this be achieved? That is the problem. Does it not concern the British Presidency that the overwhelming majority of this House and the most relevant political groups unanimously reject your proposal?
Does the opinion of this House and the Members of Parliament who were directly elected by our citizens mean nothing, or mean so little, to the Presidency of the Council? I hope the conclusions of this debate are important for your final negotiating position in the Council. And, does it not concern the British Presidency that the strongest supporters of your proposal in this Chamber are those who hold a narrow-minded, nationalistic, backward-looking vision of Europe?
Is it not strange that there is such a contradiction between the forward-looking, modern, open, competitive view of Europe expressed by Mr Blair, and the lack of ambition of the British Presidency proposal in terms of financial assurance?
I shall continue, but I believe that it is important to look into this issue; it is also a question of respect among our institutions. I already said, with all due respect, that when the president of another institution makes a speech before this Assembly, he has the right to be listened to in silence.
So, with all due respect, frankness and friendship, I say to the Presidency of the Council that we have to avoid this disconnection between the policy objectives on energy, security, immigration, research and universities that are supported by the Presidency – and were so well expressed at Hampton Court – and the resistance to providing the means to achieve them.
We must have the courage to explain this to the whole public in Europe – including, of course, the British public. If we want an enlarged Europe, we need investment. If we want a modern, reformist, competitive Europe, we need investment. If we want an open Europe in terms of global trade, we need investment. Let me tell you very frankly that I am concerned about this.
President-in-Office, you mentioned the world trade talks. I really think that, if we do not have a good deal in the European Council, this could undermine the goals for the global talks. Why? Let us be frank: in the European Union there are several opinions about the world trade talks. There are those who are more in favour, who take a more affirmative position on trade, and those who are more ‘prudent’ or resistant to it. Some of the less-developed regions of Europe and the countries that have some structural problems will not support open, ambitious world trade talks if there is not good investment in these countries’ social and economic development.
I want the British Presidency, the Member States and the Council to think strategically, not only from the point of view of an accountant but also from a political point of view, and consider whether no deal or a bad deal on the budget will not put some fundamental strategic objectives – such as the world trade talks, an open Europe and an enlarged Europe – at risk. Already we can hear people saying that, with this kind of ambition with regard to the Financial Perspective, there is no provision for further enlargements of the European Union.
Therefore, the issue we shall be discussing tomorrow is very important. It is not just about the financial perspective. It is about the budget, but it is more than that. It is the kind of vision we have for Europe: whether you envisage an ambitious open and reformist Europe – an enlarged Europe, or a mini-Europe: a Europe that does not fulfil the goals that the citizens of Europe want.
On the subject of the British rebate, let us be clear: we understand the British position. Mr Blair said: ‘the rebate is an anomaly’. However, at the same time he said that he is ready to discuss the general question of the rebate when there is a discussion on the reform of the budget. That is why I believe it is important to have a real discussion about the future of our budget, without taboos, looking at everything, the expenditure and the resources. Our discussions and the proposals made by various Member States are not about the existence of the rebate; it is the size of the increase of the rebate that is the problem. Should the British rebate grow by 60% at the expense of the poorest Members of the Union? I think not – that is not fair.
It is my duty and the duty of the Commission to represent the general interest of Europe, particularly those Member States who have just joined our Union. They want to see the solidarity of the European Union. If the European institutions do not send signals of solidarity to the new Members, they might be tempted to think that the European Union that they have joined is not the European Union of solidarity that we daily endeavour to build.
I believe a deal is possible. It is difficult but it is possible. I would just like to mention again what I believe are the minimum conditions for a deal that will also be accepted by the Commission and Parliament, because Parliament will also have a say on this. The first point is a higher level of spending. The second point is a fairer deal for the new Member States in terms of solidarity, giving them an opportunity to show whether or not they are able to spend the money, not starting from the position that they are not able to invest in their own development. The third point is the adaptation of the British rebate to meet the conditions of enlargement. That is all the Commission is asking, and we believe it is fair and reasonable. From all the contacts that we have had with all Member States, we believe this can be accepted. A fourth condition is a real review clause that will enable the Commission, Parliament and the Council to look at the budget in good time. It is true we have a problem with the budget. However, we should not be paralysed by it; we should approve the budget for the next seven years but at the same time give ourselves time to look at it in terms of expenditure and resources. We should have a real debate about what we want from the European institutions, what we want in terms of competitiveness, what we want in terms of solidarity. This should be a real review clause, not just a cosmetic review clause, so we have a true debate in Europe about the instruments to fulfil our objectives.
Finally, I believe it is important for the Council to take on board at least some, if not all, of Parliament’s very good suggestions concerning flexibility, for instance the globalisation adjustment fund – a typical flexibility instrument – and other good suggestions by Parliament for the new interinstitutional agreement. When we discuss the budget it will only be fair to take on board the suggestions that were put in a very responsible way in the debate in Parliament.
If these conditions are met, if there is a significant move on the points I have just mentioned, I believe a deal is possible and necessary. I know it is difficult and will require a lot of statesmanship by all the Members of the Council and all the Heads of State and Government present.
I believe a deal is important. It is my duty and the duty of the Commission to protect the general interest of the European Union. I can promise you that tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, we will put forward in the European Council this vision of a Europe that has ambition and a European that is committed to the goals of solidarity. Because without solidarity there is no Union.
Yes, Mr Schulz, you are right, not just listened to in silence, but listened to carefully, just as carefully as I have listened to all of you, ladies and gentlemen.
I should like to say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that, throughout this morning’s debate, I have sensed grave concern in this House, and I am sure that Mr Alexander will inform his government and the Presidency of this concern, felt by virtually all the political forces in Parliament. This concern comes in the face of a lack of ambition, which could create obstacles to the modernisation of our economies, and in the face of the danger posed by a ‘two speed’, divided Europe. It is a concern regarding the Union’s capacity to provide itself with the necessary resources to enable it to win the battle in relation to globalisation and, therefore, in relation to employment and to the well-being of Europeans. As you know, these concerns are also shared by myself and by the Commission, and I will outline them very clearly at tomorrow’s European Council.
The die has not yet been cast, however, and the time will come to take stock of the situation. We must have only one aim tomorrow: to reach an agreement. Not just any agreement, of course, but an agreement that opens up real perspectives - and not just financial perspectives, but political perspectives with a view to European integration. An agreement that opens the door to constructive negotiation with your Parliament and to the conclusion of a sound interinstitutional agreement, as – and this scarcely needs repeating – we need the agreement of the three institutions. In short, an agreement that will testify to our sense of responsibility where our citizens and Europe are concerned and that will give men and women reasons to believe in this Europe, for which the majority of people continue to hope and pray.
I would now like to address the British Presidency with all due respect, friendship and frankness.
First of all, I would like to congratulate you, because of what you have achieved during this debate: getting Mr Schulz to speak such good English was a real achievement by the British Presidency."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(He turned to Mr Schulz, who called out to him)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples