Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-16-Speech-2-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081216.31.2-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr Daul, the French Presidency appreciated the constant support of your group all the more since it was not at all easy, even within the group, to arbitrate, to find compromises and to enable agreement to be reached on a reasonable and credible political line. I know very well the role you have played as Chairman, Mr Daul, and it has been a decisive asset for us.
I very much enjoyed, I must say, working with Mr Watson who is a very exacting man. I very much appreciate your conscientiousness, how knowledgeable you are about matters and your precision. I have had to make compromises, and you said that they were reasonable. I am not going to deny here in front of the European Parliament that compromises were made. Who in Europe can say that he comes to the European Council, he does not listen to anybody else and goes away having achieved satisfaction on everything? The only question is not the question of compromise, which is built into European construction. The only question is knowing whether it is reasonable.
I realise I have forgotten, and I apologise for this, to speak about something: VAT. It is nonetheless strange – and here Mr Barroso will correct me, if necessary – that, when a country wishes to reduce VAT on all products, it can make the decision completely on its own. When, however, a country wants to reduce VAT on one category of products, it has to wait for the agreement of all the others. Please understand me, Mr Watson: I simply want to remind all of us of our responsibilities. What European citizen can understand that?
I have not passed judgment on Gordon Brown’s decision. He is a Head of Government whom I value and who has been extraordinarily helpful in the battle against the financial crisis, but he decides, for his country, to reduce VAT. All European citizens – everyone is entitled to his opinion about it – should look at that and question their own government. When one of us wants to reduce VAT on one product only, he has to say to these same citizens: ‘I am sorry, it has to be a unanimous decision!’ I am saying that this rule cannot continue. The rule has to be the same for everyone. I am saying to the Commission too that I do not think it is reasonable to preserve unanimity. One has the right to have ideas and not to be frightened every time there is a new idea. I have been approached by Mr Watson about this and I want to address it thoroughly.
With Mr Barroso, we have made a proposal for a decision to the Council. It is important, as we have been talking about the problems of reducing VAT for three years. It has been decided – that is actually an agreement that I proposed with the German Chancellor, Mrs Merkel – that we should stop talking and make a decision next March, in the Ecofin Council. I think that is a reasonable agreement; now a decision has to be made.
There is the whole problem of clean products. I should like to say, Mr Watson, that it is not reasonable for clean products to cost more than products that cause pollution. If countries want to reduce the rate of VAT in order to encourage high environmental quality building, to encourage cars that pollute less, to encourage ecological products, they should be allowed to do so. One small thing I would like to say is that VAT on dark chocolate is at a reduced rate, whereas on milk chocolate VAT is 19.6%. How can anyone understand that? I personally regret that because I prefer milk chocolate to dark chocolate, but of course I am just speaking for myself.
The situation with books and cultural products is worse. Europe would benefit from talking more about culture and sport. With regard to cultural products, VAT on books – and this is a very good decision – is 5.5%. How can anyone understand why VAT on videos and CDs, then, is 19.6%? These are cultural products: soon there will be no more videos sold – they will be pirated – and no more CDs sold in Europe. It is in everybody’s interest to look at problems concerning culture. The same reasoning applies to job creation services. I hope that the Ministers of Finance at the Ecofin Council in March will hear the message from the Heads of State or Government.
I must say a word, Mr Watson, about the number of Commissioners. I will give you my opinion. Whether the Commission has 24 Commissioners, 27 or tomorrow 33 does not change anything. I am convinced that in the end we need to strengthen the power of the President of the Commission. It is my personal opinion that I am giving you. Why? It is because only the President of the Commission can provide a common doctrine for all Commissioners who, in the same market, are faced with different situations.
I will add one last point. I did not think it was reasonable to explain to Member States that we would have a President elected for two and a half years, and therefore that the Presidency of the Council, rotating every six months, would remain, but would be virtual and that, at the same time, we would be removing the right for each country to have a Commissioner. I do not think that the Commission is strengthened by doing that. It is, therefore, a compromise that I negotiated and proposed especially as I think that it will be useful for the future.
I have to say, in all honesty, that your group, in its support for the Treaty of Lisbon, takes a coherent view of Europe, a powerful Europe with stable institutions and a presidency for two and a half years that will devote itself only to the presidency of Europe.
Mr Cohn-Bendit, what a strange thing it always is with you! You are a courteous, tolerant, nice person when one meets you in private, when one invites you to lunch: you understand the other person’s arguments. One thinks that one would like to see you again and then, as soon as there is a television camera in front of you, you seem to go mad. The same man with whom one gets on well in private …
… whose company one enjoys, this same man suddenly changes and I want to say to the public who are watching us: ‘do not believe a word of the images you have just seen. Daniel Cohn-Bendit is much better than that; he is not like the caricature of himself that he has just shown you.’
I will tell you why, Mr Cohn-Bendit, because I have known you personally for a long time. We often telephone each other, and you have come to lunch three times at the Élysée Palace. Admittedly, you once arrived late, but I did not send the motorcycle escorts for you. So that you would not be late the next time, I did send them out for you. You did not refuse them, which shows that you are willing to abide by the Republic’s rules, but, above all, Mr Cohn-Bendit, you are a true European when you speak about Europe. When you speak as you did to me, however, you are not a European because outrageous behaviour is not European, because outrageous behaviour is the very opposite of Europe. Stay as the man we know and love, then I can say to Mr Schulz: ‘you see, I have been able to change Europe a bit, but not Daniel Cohn-Bendit’.
Mrs Muscardini, thank you for your support. I would like to say one thing, however, which is that, having spoken about Germany which supported us and about the United Kingdom, I was glad of the support from Italy, which was not all that obvious on the climate change and energy package. The President of the Commission will correct me, if necessary. A number of countries took positions at the start and I must say that the Italian Government and Mr Berlusconi made the task easier for us at the last European Council. I say this because it is the truth. I do not say it in order to favour one person or another. I say it because, to build a consensus in Europe, everyone needs to be sure that they are valued, not according to their defence of national interests, but according to the European interest. You are absolutely right, Mrs Muscardini: the real economy must now become our priority, and we shall see in the course of 2009 whether we need to do more than we have decided so far, according to the seriousness of the crisis and for certain sectors of industry.
Mr Wurtz, I appreciated the discussions we have had together and I particularly appreciated the fact that you supported the right to do politics in Europe. Really doing politics in Europe, giving back political choices to Europeans, while respecting tolerance and openness towards each other is very much what has been lacking. Politics must make a comeback in Europe! What is politics? It is offering choices! It is not presenting people with just one option, and this brings me, in reply to Mr Wurtz, to remind you of what Mr Farage said. Things must be clear!
There is a country that rejected the Treaty of Lisbon. We understand this refusal, and we are trying to understand and respond to it. You may say, watch out, this is verging on the dictatorial. Would it not be dictatorial, however, for one country alone to impose on 26 others a situation, a policy that they do not want?
I found myself, Mr Farage – and I am speaking to Mr Wurtz too – in the same situation in France. France rejected the Constitution by 55%. France had to make the effort to reconsider. What effort? I made a commitment during the campaign – I was the only one among the candidates – not to organise a referendum. I accept political responsibility for that; I was committed to the Treaty of Lisbon. How is it possible to say that it would be almost fascist to ask our Irish friends to vote again? What are we to say then about the other 26 countries which ratified the Treaty, some of them by referendum too, and which, from this point of view, would have to give up their choice?
I think that these are common-sense ideas that will make it possible to give something tangible to all those, like us, Mr Daul, with your group, who want a Europe that protects, that prepares for the future and not a Europe that is anxious and worried about the future. You can be sure anyway that your group’s unwavering support has played a decisive part in the French Presidency and in the results we have achieved.
The truth is that Europe needs Ireland. We are 27 countries and we want to bring the 27 together over the Treaty of Lisbon. Each one now is aware of its responsibilities. If the Irish want a European Commissioner, well then there is Lisbon, because under the Treaty of Nice there will not be a European Commissioner for everybody. If the Irish have understood the situation properly, it seems to me that they have been happy for all of Europe to stand alongside Ireland when the financial storm almost carried Ireland away, and very happy for the President of the Commission to find a solution – something that was not easy – when first off the Irish Government had gone so far as to guarantee all the banks, all banking products, forgetting, just for a moment, that foreign banks in Ireland had to be treated in the same way as the Irish banks in Ireland.
I think that the crisis, from this point of view, forces public opinion to stop and think. Mr Wurtz, one cannot stand alone in the midst of the storm. I think it is important for the Irish to vote again, and I will fight with all my might alongside the Irish Government for them to say ‘yes’. If they were to say ‘no’, they would be making a political choice. Will the other 26 then have to give up their ambitions? It is a matter that we would have to debate, in spite of everything, if we found ourselves in that situation.
Finally, Mr Farage, I should like to tell you that I approved of Mr Pöttering’s courageous and reasonable attitude towards Mr Klaus. Everyone wants to be respected, but to be respected, you have to respect others and sometimes one is a little surprised by some of the statements made by the President of one of the great countries of the European Union. He wants to be respected, I understand that completely, but frankly, for the Europeans here, it was hurtful to see all the European flags taken down from every public building in this great country, the Czech Republic. It was to no one’s credit to have acted in this way and I am pleased that the Prime Minister, Mr Topolánek, had the courage not to let himself be carried along with this trend.
President Pöttering and the group chairmen can in any case count on the full support of the Presidency. We do not treat the chairmen of political groups in this way, we do not treat the President of the European Parliament in this way and we do not treat the symbols of Europe in this way; whatever one’s political commitment, that does not happen and should not happen.
Finally, Mr Gollnisch, you say that Europe is not fit for purpose. That is always your stance and, of course, I respect it, but you can see also that Member States remaining alone in their corner, that too is not fit for purpose. You say that we have acted alone but that is not so. If each of us had decided in isolation to support our banks, we would not have supported any bank. Not one, and for a very simple reason, which is that European banks have mutualised loans and mutualised risks. If each of us individually had said: ‘we can get through this on our own’, then the whole system would have been brought down with no chance of support, success or return to serenity. Of course, it is up to Member States to make decisions because it is the Member States who vote on their budget, but these decisions had to be taken in a coordinated way.
I will finish there then. Europe is strong when it rests on the support of strong and responsible States, and because these States are strong, they accept the need for compromise in the European interest. The big mistake is to think that, for Europe to be strong, the States must be weak. For my part, I think that strong States are necessary to build a strong Europe because it is only the strong who are able to hold out their hand and make compromises. It is only the weak who are sectarian and who are turned in on themselves. We must, I believe, put this lesson from the crisis to good use.
I will finish there. That means that the large countries of Europe have no more rights than the smallest countries, but they have, perhaps, more responsibilities. What has not worked in recent years is that the large countries have sought to avoid and sometimes shirk the responsibilities that it was their duty to accept. In the crisis too, it was not just the Presidency alone that assumed its responsibilities, it was all those large countries that assumed theirs. We all have the same rights but some have more duties than others. I say that because I think it from the very depths of my European convictions.
Mr Schulz, it takes courage to agree to speak with someone who is not of your political family. When we met with you and with Mr Daul, we said at the beginning that it was not going to be easy, because there is the prospect of the European elections and that inevitably puts a strain on things. In all honesty I must say that for us, for the French Presidency, Mr Schulz, you and your group were a demanding partner – can anyone criticise you for defending your ideas vigorously? – but also a completely responsible partner. On a personal level, working with you has been a great pleasure for me, but at the same time it has been really inspiring every time I have been able to listen to your or Mr Daul’s advice, because I know full well that we would not have achieved these results if we had not worked together. I will say to Mr Cohn-Bendit that it takes a lot more courage to take a step towards the other person than it does to fuss about on your seat and act the prophet of doom.
It is the person who builds something who is courageous, not the one who makes accusations. Mr Schulz and Mr Daul have allowed us to build, to move Europe forwards. There are others here who have stood alongside us, without sharing our point of view, like Mrs De Sarnez, for example, and I have been grateful when she has supported us. That does not detract in any way from the convictions of any of them, Mr Schulz or Mrs De Sarnez. Quite simply, that is what European civilisation is: men and women who are reasonable and of good will and who are trying to move issues forward. You did not choose me, Mr Schulz, and I did not choose you, but it is our duty to work together. We have done so and I would like to say to you that, from this point of view, that will remain a great experience for me.
It is possible to change Europe, and we must carry on. You said that I had travelled a great deal, but, after all, when you are President of the European Council, if you do not like travelling, you would do better to miss your turn because the only way, it seems to me, of bringing Europe closer to its citizens, is for European citizens, for Europeans, to see that those who are temporarily in charge of its institutions come and talk with them and give a human face to these institutions. I believe, you see, Mr Schulz, that I have really felt during my travels, particularly in Dublin, but also when I was in Gdańsk, in Warsaw or indeed elsewhere, that what is missing in Europe is not so much institutions as faces. People need to be able to see us in the flesh and say to themselves that Europe is not just an institutional monster made up of no one knows who, but individuals with their weaknesses. It is not a matter of personalising things, of course, that is not the way forward, but perhaps we have gone too far with the impersonal nature of the responsibilities of different people.
One thing I would like to say to you, and perhaps you will think it naive, is that I really loved this job and I think that the people who lead Europe should love what they do. How can we make people love Europe if we do not love what we do? In France, I had occasion to say to one of my ministers that the European Parliament was extremely important, that Europe is extremely important. Yet if we ourselves are not happy, proud and passionate about what we do – as all of you are – how do you expect Europeans to feel passionate about Europe?
There was an approach to building Europe that people said was a bit distant, a bit technocratic. Technocracy, however, is not about having technical knowledge; it is about never putting any feeling into it. Europe deserves, I believe, us to put feelings into it. Anyway, I appreciate your appreciation: we may have disagreed, Mr Schulz, but we have added something to each other. You have not altered your convictions in any way and I have not altered mine. We have simply shown that, in order to build, each of us needs the other, and, for me, that will remain a great moment of democracy.
Mr Watson, last time, I remember, you talked about Carla. Today, you talked about Angela. You are a man of taste, Mr Watson. I appreciate your comments!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples