Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-16-Speech-2-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081216.31.2-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when France took over the presidency, the situation in Europe was dominated by the standstill in the process of ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon following Ireland’s vote to reject that Treaty.
Europe made its presence felt, without, however, getting involved in an aggressive policy in our Russian neighbours’ backyard. I am convinced that our only option for the future is to work with our neighbours to achieve a situation of economic development, security and peace, explaining to them that, if they want to count on a global level – and Russia is a big country – they will need to respect values, practices and behaviours very different from those that they used to espouse in Europe, in another era.
Europe was present. Then came the financial crisis. It was not born in August 2007, as I have heard people say: August 2007 was when the problems started, but the systemic financial crisis that has been experienced throughout the world started when the United States decided, in what has turned out to be an extremely serious move, to allow Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt on 18 September 2008. It was then, and only then, that we found ourselves in a financial crisis on a globally unprecedented scale.
We, along with President Barroso, have tried to achieve two things. The first was European unity, which we have developed progressively: first by bringing together the four largest countries in Europe with the Commission, the European Central Bank and the President of the Eurogroup; then by arranging, for the first time since 2000, a meeting of the countries in the Eurogroup at Head of State or Government level, and, finally, in September, by bringing together all the Heads of State or Government, we have developed a recovery plan for European banks that is supported by all the countries of Europe. It was, as you know, difficult, because the severity of the crisis had led certain countries to take premature decisions: I am sure they could not have done otherwise, for example the Irish when overwhelmed by the attacks on the whole of their banking system.
In the end, a month later, the whole of Europe united around a single plan to support the banks, and we, with President Barroso, have attempted to turn the European support plan to stop our banking system collapsing into a global plan. The United States have progressed from Paulson Plan I to Paulson Plan II, and have now got to Paulson Plan III, which is clearly inspired by European Plan I.
I am not claiming that everything has been fixed; I am simply saying that, had the Member States, the Commission and the European institutions not shouldered their responsibilities at that time, ladies and gentlemen, we would have been facing the unprecedented prospect of the collapse or bankruptcy of certain Member States, and the destruction of the European banking system.
Europe has demonstrated its unity and solidarity. I am thinking in particular of that infamous weekend when we needed to mobilise EUR 22 billion in credit for Hungary, which was itself under attack after it had been necessary to mobilise EUR 17 billion for Ukraine. There is still some concern regarding certain Baltic countries, not to mention the other global problems we need to tackle.
In the financial crisis, Europe has been united: it called for the Washington Summit, it called for the G20, and it will organise, in London on 2 April, the summit on the reform of global financial governance. Europe has spoken with one voice to say that it wants capitalism based on entrepreneurship, not speculation, that it wants a reform of the financial system, that it wants a different role for the emerging countries and that it wants ethical capitalism; Europe has spoken with one voice to defend its principles.
With regard to the economic crisis, the debate has not been straightforward, ladies and gentlemen. It has not been straightforward for two reasons. The first is that the financial situation is not the same in all our countries; the second is that our economic cultures, and political identities, are not the same. Even so, at the end of the day, everybody recognised the need for a coordinated boost of around 1.5% of GDP, as the Commission recommended.
I fully understand that people may be surprised at disagreements here and there, hesitations, confusion and misunderstandings. I would remind those who are watching Europe that there are 27 countries here, and that it is not easy to give those 27 countries the same policy at the same time, when any country could be subject to electoral pressures – because we do not all have elections on the same day – and in this House, the temple of European democracy, everyone understands that upcoming electoral campaigns are not exactly conducive to obtaining a consensus. In spite of everything, Europe, having established a common policy in the financial crisis, has managed, after a fashion, to establish a common policy for the economic crisis.
We had no idea at the time that war would break out between Georgia and Russia, and we also had no idea of the severity of the financial, and then economic, crisis with which Europe would be faced.
We also had the time of the Union for the Mediterranean. I rather assume that it was necessary to coordinate and to compromise in order to make two things clear. One is that, if Europe does not do its bit for peace in the Middle East, nobody will do it for us: there is no one country in the world able to promote peace between Israel and the Arab world. Europe must play its part, and must make its presence felt in order to avoid a head-on collision between the Arab world, on the one hand, and the world’s leading power, the United States, on the other.
As for the Union for the Mediterranean, it is an organisation for constant dialogue between Europe and the Mediterranean, including the Arab countries. This is a dialogue that we need and that the Arabs need. Europe needs this so that it can stop simply being a donor and can have political convictions that promote peace, and so that, instead of just being content to pay out, it can also call for peace, a balanced peace, particularly between the Palestinians, who have the right to a modern, democratic, secure state, and Israel, which has the right to security for a country that is a miracle of democracy.
A certain amount of persuasion was needed on the subject of the Union for the Mediterranean: persuasion that the Union for the Mediterranean was not calling into question the unity of Europe but that, on the contrary, it would strengthen it. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, we as Europeans can be proud that the Union for the Mediterranean is co-chaired by the Presidency of the EU and Egypt and that it has five Deputy Secretaries General, including an Israeli and a Palestinian: this is the first time that the Arab countries have accepted an Israeli as a member of the executive of a regional organisation like the Union for the Mediterranean, which is a historic achievement.
I would like to pay tribute to Bernard Kouchner, who negotiated brilliantly at the Marseilles summit to achieve a result that we could not even have dreamed of. In return, the Israelis have agreed to the participation of the Arab League in the work of the Union for the Mediterranean. This Union will in no way hinder the Czech, and then Swedish, Presidency from developing, in future, the Eastern partnerships that Europe needs.
Now we turn to energy and climate change. On this subject, let us be quite clear: this was an infamous battle, and I am quite sure that everyone has reason to be dissatisfied. Some feel that we are expecting too much of industry; others, that we are not expecting enough; one group thinks we should go this way; another group thinks we should go that way. In the end, the German Presidency set a deadline of the end of 2008. The German Presidency had set three objectives – the ‘triple 20’ – and, at its heart, the agreement that we sealed at the European Council, and that I hope will be adopted by the European Parliament tomorrow, meets the objectives you set yourselves.
I must be honest and say that all parties needed to be reminded of their responsibilities. It would have been madness, just at the moment when a new President of the United States was setting ambitious environmental targets for the most powerful country in the world, for Europe to give up on its own targets. It would have been irresponsible, because, had Europe not reached unanimity on the Commission’s energy and climate change package, we would not have been able to expect to be listened to by India, China, Brazil, and all the other countries in the world that now need to take responsibility for the environmental balance of the planet.
To get to that point, we had to be persuasive, and we had to find areas for compromise. What were they? I stated that we would never give up on the timetable or on the triple 20 objective, but everyone here needs to understand that countries such as the new Eastern Member States, where heavy industry has been a victim of the transition from the communist system to the market economy, agreed to retain the reference to 2005 even though they had good reason to call for a different reference year, for example 1990, to be used. That would not have been a surprise in view of what has happened in those countries and what they have undergone. I am speaking under the watchful eye of Jean-Louis Borloo, who provided complete, unwavering and effective support in these negotiations. I did not want a proactive approach to the environment to be achieved at the expense of a social policy that would cause these new members of the EU to collapse.
To the fundamentalists I would say that, for me, it was never a matter of not imposing environmental requirements on Poland, Hungary and the others, but rather of not putting those countries in a situation of social collapse and of not forcing them to choose between environmental protection and growth. What we proposed was a new kind of growth: sustainable, green growth that would avoid soaring prices and the kind of impact on Polish, Hungarian and Eastern workers that no democratic country in the world could tolerate.
I would also add that I listened carefully to your concerns on my last visit to Parliament. Some of you – and I do understand this – told me ‘you have given up on your aims, Mr President, because you accepted unanimity for the Council’s decision’. I agreed to unanimity for one simple reason: the environmental choices that Europe makes must not be forced choices, but deliberate choices. Can you imagine how weak an agreement obtained by majority voting would have been, with a number of countries that would not have stuck to it? How credible would the energy and climate change package have been if it were ratified by a majority, when everyone can see that it is unanimity that guarantees that our political commitments will be met?
Mr President, the French Presidency has tried to base all its actions on two convictions: the first is that the world needs a strong Europe, and the second is that Europe cannot be strong if it is divided. Of course, I am sure that these are not original ideas, but they are no less vital for that.
Moreover, some of you have reminded me that this was a matter for codecision, and I would like to say that I made use of that. In my discussion with my fellow Heads of State or Government, I must in all honesty say, Mr President, that the watchful presence of a Parliament determined to reach an agreement on the energy and climate change package was an influential motivating factor for those Heads of State or Government who were less willing than others to reach conclusions.
In any event, I am here today bringing the unanimous agreement of all 27 Heads of State or Government on the energy and climate change package. Do with it what you will.
I will finish with two brief points. With regard to migration policy, it is inconceivable for Europe – most of whose countries are in the Schengen area, which is based on the free movement of persons and goods – to keep going without developing common principles for establishing a common immigration policy. The work has been done and, I have to say, it was done without excessive hype. You in the European Parliament have done a lot to bring a note of calm to a debate on immigration policy that, at national level, is not always exemplary in terms of respect for people, calm, consideration and responsibility. We now have a unanimous foundation for a common immigration policy.
Turning briefly to defence, I, along with Chancellor Merkel, will have the opportunity next year to organise the Kehl/Strasbourg NATO Summit. To my mind, the important decision we have made here is that, from now on, the 27 countries understand that the security and defence policy is Europe’s and NATO’s, that Europe’s security and defence policy is complementary to NATO’s, not in opposition to it.
Finally, we have the institutional problem. Following the ‘no’ vote in Ireland, I went to Dublin with Bernard Kouchner, at the invitation of Brian Cowen, the Irish Prime Minister, and I stated then, to people’s shock at the time, that the only way of getting out of the problem was to consult our Irish friends again. This statement provoked debate, as if it were disrespectful to people to ask that they get another opportunity to decide!
How do things look today? Today, 25 countries have all but completed the process of ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon. The 26th, the Czech Republic, has just taken an important decision, in that the Constitutional Court has stated that the Lisbon ratification process can take place, and Prime Minister Topolánek has indicated, in a courageous and responsible statement, that his ambition is to propose the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. That leaves us with the Irish.
This is the agreement that we have reached unanimously. It is a very simple agreement. It consists, primarily, in guaranteeing that, if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, there will be one Commissioner per Member State. I know that this is a stretch for some of you, as it is for certain governments which believed that the Commission needed to be smaller in order to be more effective. I would, however, ask you to consider this: if we want Lisbon – and Europe needs strong, sustainable institutions – we can only have it if the Irish vote and say ‘yes’, and in order for them to say ‘yes’, we need a new situation. The European Council proposes that this new situation should be one Commissioner per Member State.
The second element of the agreement is that we have made certain political commitments relating to the specific features of the Irish debate, such as neutrality, taxation and family. These political commitments were not difficult to make, so where is the problem? It is best to lay everything on the table. The problem is the legal force that these political commitments will have, because Ireland has a Constitutional Court, and there is no doubt that the ‘no’ campaign – as is their right – will go to the Irish Constitutional Court to ask what force these political commitments have.
The compromise suggested by the Presidency is this: no re-ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon for those who have already done so, and no amendment of the Treaty of Lisbon. There is no point, in my view, in solving one problem by creating 26 others. That much is clear. On the other hand, the next time Europe enlarges – probably to include Croatia in 2010 or 2011 if all goes according to plan – at that point, Mr President, we will need a new treaty in order to enlarge Europe with a new member. We have therefore proposed that, at the time when Europe enlarges, and not until then, we will add two elements to Croatia’s Treaty of Accession: the first will be an ‘Irish’ protocol, and the second will relate to the number of MEPs. The European elections will be held on the basis of the Treaty of Nice. I do not see that there is any other option, because certain States were granted additional MEPs under the Treaty of Lisbon. We could also deal with this problem on the occasion of the next enlargement.
On this basis, the Irish Government has bravely committed itself to carrying out another referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon before the end of 2009. That means that, if things turn out as I hope they will – though it is up to the Irish to decide – the Treaty of Lisbon will enter into force only one year late.
We have tried, over the last six months, to ensure that Europe is united and strong, and that it thinks for itself. What is a strong Europe? It is a Europe that thinks, that has convictions, that has answers and that has imagination. It is a Europe that is not content to follow a lead, and that rejects a consensus based solely on what is left unsaid, on disposing of problems and on time healing all wounds, as I am convinced that, the more we wait, the more complicated things get.
Ladies and gentlemen, this too was not a simple matter to discuss or to organise, nor will it be easy, either for the Irish or for others, but the European spirit is, first of all, a spirit of compromise. If we cannot reach a compromise between 27 of us, it is not worth having a European ideal. The European ideal is to listen to others and to work together to find shared paths to get round problems.
I would like to conclude by thanking, first of all, the European Parliament. I would also say that it has been very easy, and very pleasurable, for the Presidency to keep in contact with all of the groups in this House, whatever their political leanings, left or right, liberal or green, sovereigntists or federalists. You have all shown a desire to move Europe forward, in your own ways. I must in all honesty say that, for the Presidency, Parliament has played a decisive role in obtaining results. I would even say that it has been easier to talk, to work and to negotiate with the European Parliament than with certain other contacts, mentioning no names. At the end of a presidency, one should be specific in one’s compliments, but general in one’s regrets.
I would also like to say that we have endeavoured to work in tandem with the President of the Commission, each being aware of our own responsibilities, and, to do him justice, the Presidency could never have achieved the results it did without working hand in hand with President Barroso. I think this is important to say because it is the truth, at least in my experience.
Finally, I would like to thank the Heads of State or Government. Ladies and gentlemen, we will not build Europe in opposition to the States: that much is obvious. However European you are, Europe is not the enemy of the nations, and the nations are not the enemy of Europe. I will tell you one thing: if we had not tried to understand the problems of each democratic government, we would not have got very far. It is a mistake to try to go over the heads of the elected representatives of their countries: that is not a European ideal, that is fundamentalism, and I have fought against fundamentalism all my life, even European fundamentalism, because, when I hear ‘European fundamentalism’, I forget the word Europe and only hear the word fundamentalism, and fundamentalism is never a good idea. It would be a mistake of historic proportions to try to build Europe in opposition to the nations. The Heads of Government have taken on their responsibilities, and the countries have taken on theirs.
To conclude, I would like to say, on a personal level, that I have learned a lot during the six months of the Presidency and that I have enjoyed the work a great deal. I understand why MEPs are passionate about what they do, because, when we have an opportunity to spend six months to understand and grapple with the problems of 27 countries, we gain in tolerance, in openness of spirit and in understanding that Europe is without doubt the most beautiful idea invented in the 20th century and that we need this Europe now more than ever. I have tried to make Europe move, but Europe has changed me. I want to say one more thing, because it is my very profound belief.
I really do think that every Head of State or Government would benefit from undertaking this responsibility at one time or another, first of all because it will help them to understand that the problems they experience in their countries can often only be solved in agreement with their neighbours. They will also learn that, despite our differences, there are many, many things that bring us together, and they will also learn something more important: that it is easier for Europe to have big ambitions than small ones.
The final thing that I believe from the bottom of my heart is that, in the European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission, it is easier to succeed with big projects than with small ones, because small projects do not have the momentum they need to overcome national egos. Big projects, big ambitions and big ideas are needed: with these big ideas and big ambitions, we can overcome national egos. Consequently, may Europe stay ambitious, and may it understand that the world needs it to take decisions! When we brush things under the carpet, we store up trouble for the future. Problems need to be dealt with here and now, and it is not true that the European institutions stop decisions being taken. What prevents decisions being taken is a lack of courage, a lack of drive: it is the weakening of an ideal. Decisions cannot wait for Lisbon! We must not wait for tomorrow, but take decisions now, and I have every confidence in the Czech Presidency that it will keep up the work of the French Presidency.
In the end, this Presidency played out to the rhythm of international events that overturned the organisation of our work, and it is certainly not up to me to take stock of it. I simply wanted to tell you how we faced up to these various challenges.
When the crisis in Georgia arose in August, on 8 August, we had just one focus: stopping the war and not allowing it to turn into another Bosnia. To be frank, and without wishing to judge too harshly, when the conflict took off in Bosnia – in Europe – Europe was not there. It was the United States, our friends and allies, that shouldered their responsibilities, and Europe that had to follow their lead.
The Presidency was passionate about ensuring that Europe shouldered its responsibilities, and in August we started by negotiating the ceasefire, on 12 August, followed by a withdrawal agreement on 12 September. In the end, war was avoided, the retreat was started and, above all – thanks to all the Member States of the EU – Europe remained united.
This was not a foregone conclusion because, given the history of our various countries, a painful history for those Europeans who lived for so many years behind the Iron Curtain, in a humiliated Europe, a divided Europe, a sacrificed Europe, it was quite natural that certain countries would have different feelings towards our Russian neighbours from those who have only known freedom.
Despite that, Europe remained united, and the Presidency, alongside the President of the European Commission, made every effort to avoid the war spiralling out of control. On 8 August, Russian troops were 40 km outside Tbilisi; today, practically all of the Russian troops have left the territory of Georgia, apart from Ossetia and Abkhazia."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples