Martin, Hans-Peter (NI). – (DE) Mr President, yesterday, you addressed us prior to your election, and your own words were that we must do away with all the grey areas that do damage to this Parliament. There is one decision that many Members find incomprehensible, and that is the quaestors’ decision on 26 May, which has meant that over two hundred former Members of this House have drawn a daily subsistence allowance for yesterday. I would ask you to have this matter investigated, and also to consider whether this allowance can be withheld, as it has led to the taxpayer yet again having to cough up between EUR 50 000 and EUR 100 000.
President. Thank you very much, Mr Martin. We will examine your comment and the appropriate measures will be taken if necessary.
European Council/Irish presidency
President. The next item is the joint debate on the Report of the European Council and the Commission Statement – European Councils of 17, 18 and 29 June 2004 – and the Council Statement – Six months of the Irish Presidency.
Ahern, Bertie,Council. A Uachtaráin Borrell, A Uachtaráin Prodi, a Chomhaltaí Onóracha de Pharlaimint na hEorpa, agus a dhaoine uaisle.
Tá an-áthas orm a bheith anseo inniu ag an gcéad Seisiún Iomlánach den suí nua de Pharlaimint na hEorpa. Ba mhaith liom an deis seo a ghlacadh le comhghairdeas a dhéanamh le gach comhalta nua ó na fiche cúig Ballstát den Aontas Eorpach ar a dtoghadh an mhí seo caite i bhfeidhmiú an ghnímh daonlathais osnáisiúnta is mó riamh sa domhan. Is maith an rud daoine a bhí anseo cheana a fheiceáil in aontas le daoine nua a bheith i láthair.
(President Borrell, President Prodi, honourable Members of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to be here today at this first Plenary session of the new European Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all Members, from across the twenty-five Member States of the European Union, on their election last month in the greatest supranational exercise in democracy that the world has ever known. It is good to see familiar faces and new faces alike.)
Mr President, I see that some Members are having difficulty receiving their Irish language interpretation. Perhaps when Irish is fully recognised in Europe we will have one difficulty less.
I am very pleased to be here today at the first plenary session of the new European Parliament. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate all Members, from across the 25 Member States of the European Union, on their election last month in the greatest supranational exercise in democracy that the world has ever known. It is good to see familiar faces and new faces alike in this new Parliament.
I would also like, President Borrell, to congratulate you on your election to the post of President of the European Parliament and to wish you well. In Ireland, and particularly as outgoing presidency, we are very conscious of the crucial and constructive role played by the Parliament in the work of the European Union. During our presidency we enjoyed an immensely cooperative and mutually supportive relationship with the European Parliament, which was an essential element in the realisation of many of our presidency goals. I wish you every success in the exercise of your office over the coming years.
I have come here today to report on the outcome of the June European Council and on the work of the Irish presidency of the Council for the first six months of 2004. Before I do, however, I want to outline the two key principles which underlined Ireland's presidency and indeed underpin Ireland's general approach to European affairs.
The first and most basic principle that informed our approach was that Europe must work - and must be seen to work - for its people. Too often, the debate on European issues can drift into a world of jargon and theory. In doing so it runs a real risk of losing the attention and, in due course, the support of its citizens.
The European Union is not a matter of theory. It has and will continue to make a real difference to the lives of its citizens. Without it, Europe could not have recovered from the devastation of the world wars. Without it, Europe could not have created a vibrant single market and a strong and stable single currency. Without it, we would not have had the frameworks of social and environmental protection which are the cornerstones of the European model. And, of course, without it we would not have been in a position to embrace and support the Europeans who have suffered half a century of totalitarian oppression.
We all need to focus on making the new enlarged European Union relevant and responsive to our citizens. To do so we need to focus on that which unites us rather than that which divides us. We need to focus on the key concerns of the citizen: jobs, social and environmental protection, peace and security. They have been the ingredients of Europe's success. They must remain at the centre of our attention as leaders, legislators and Europeans.
The second principle that has underpinned our approach to Europe has been the principle of fairness. Whether you are large or small - as Ireland is - rules matter. The fair, even-handed and transparent application of those rules matters even more. The European Union has created a zone where the concerns of all can be respected, the identities of all can be strengthened and the fundamental interests and rights of all can be protected. It is essential that the traditions of equality, fairness and cooperation that have been the keystones of the European Union be reinforced in the new enlarged Union.
When I addressed this House in January, I set out five main areas of work for the Irish presidency. We wanted a speedy and successful outcome to the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. We wanted a successful enlargement and we wanted to progress the ongoing enlargement negotiations. We were determined that the Spring European Council would help to revitalise and reinvigorate the Lisbon Strategy. I reported comprehensively on this issue to Parliament in March 2004. In the Justice and Home Affairs area we wanted to deliver on the commitments made in the Amsterdam Treaty and in the Tampere programme. Last, but by no means least, we sought to give renewed coherence and impetus to the European Union’s external agenda.
One of the main issues on our agenda, and one on which, I am delighted to say, we had a successful outcome, was the nomination of the new President of the European Commission. José Manuel Durão Barroso played a full part in the search for the next President of the Commission. It was only towards the end of the process that he allowed his name to go forward as a candidate for the position. I was therefore very pleased that the European Council by consensus agreed to propose Mr Durão Barroso as its nominee for President of the European Commission.
At such a crucial time in the Union's development we could not have found a better candidate. He is a man who is prepared to lead and is able to take decisions. He is a committed European and has a deep understanding of the interests of all Member States, large and small, old and new. I have no hesitation in recommending him to you.
I am also delighted that it was possible to reach agreement on other important appointments. Javier Solana, who has been outstanding in his present functions, will continue in the post of Secretary-General of the Council, and Pierre de Boissieu will continue as Deputy Secretary-General. On the entry into force of the European Constitution, following its ratification in every Member State, Secretary-General and High Representative Solana is set to become the Union’s first Foreign Minister.
A particular highlight of our presidency was, of course, the agreement we reached on a new Constitution at the Intergovernmental Conference on 18 June. This was the culmination of more than two-and-a-half years' work that began with the Laeken Declaration in December 2001. The new Constitution is a tribute to the commitment and political will of all of the participants in the European Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference.
Today, nonetheless, I want to pay a special tribute to the work of the European Parliament. Throughout the process, in the European Convention and the IGC, Parliament has shown a deep sense of commitment to the European Union and to the citizens whose interests it directly represents. The Convention outcome in particular - the great bulk of which was unaltered in the Intergovernmental Conference - reflected much that was brought to the table by the representatives of this Parliament.
I am conscious, too, that in the course of the Intergovernmental Conference the same positive, flexible and constructive attitude was struck throughout. I want to acknowledge especially the hard work that was done to find solutions to issues of particular concern to Parliament, and which was essential to finding an overall agreement. A final deal would not have been possible without the assistance and commitment of Parliament. I want to express my warmest thanks to you all, in particular to Mr Brok and Mr Hänsch and, of course, the former President of the European Parliament, Mr Cox. They gave enormous help, assistance and commitment to me and Mr Roche, my Minister for Europe, who is with me today. We deeply appreciate all their help.
You will all be more than familiar at this stage with the contents of the Constitution. I would still nonetheless like to highlight some of the features that make it such a positive step forward for the Union. We have succeeded in setting down clearly in one single document what the Union is and what the Union does. We have defined a set of values and objectives that we can all share and which make the European Union unique across the world.
We have enhanced the democratic legitimacy of the European Union by extending the powers of the European Parliament. We have also strengthened the role of national parliaments and opened the Council of Ministers to more public scrutiny. We have clarified the division of powers between the Union and the Member States. It is now clear how decisions are taken, and who is entitled to take them. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality have also been strengthened.
We have incorporated the Charter of Fundamental Rights as an integral part of the Constitution. In a significant advance in the area of human rights, the Union's institutions and the Member States when implementing Union law will be bound by the Charter, and the Union's citizens will have the right to legal redress if they feel their rights have not been upheld. In addition, the Union is to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, which will help to ensure consistency between the Courts in Strasbourg and Luxembourg.
We have agreed an institutional framework that fully respects the rights of all Member States in all of the Union's institutions. Each Member State will nominate a member of the Commission until 2014. At that time a move will be made to a smaller Commission with members from two-thirds of the Member States selected on the basis of absolutely equal rotation, unless the European Council decides unanimously to fix a different size. We have thus provided the basis for an effective Commission into the future which, I know you agree, is of crucial importance for the Union.
The principle of double majority voting, enshrining the dual nature of the Union as a Union of States and citizens, will be implemented in a way that respects the concerns of all IGC participants and enhances the efficiency of decision-making. The new team presidency arrangements bringing three Member States together to implement an agreed programme will help the Council to become more effective and efficient. The new permanent President of the European Council, Foreign Minister and External Action Service will enhance coordination and allow the Union to play a more effective role in the wider world.
These are all remarkable achievements, which many would have believed impossible at the outset of the Convention process. I thank all those in the Convention, all those who helped us, my good colleague the President of the Commission Mr Prodi, his colleagues who worked so hard to help us in our work, and, of course, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, who was the President of the Convention. Work is now getting under way to prepare the text for signature by Heads of State or Government on 29 October in Rome. Following signature, attention will focus on ratification, which is intended to be concluded at the latest by 1 November 2006.
Some Member States will hold referendums, others will ratify the text using parliamentary procedures. Irrespective of the choices made by Member States, it is incumbent on us all to explain what is in the Constitution, and why it will be so beneficial for the Union, the Member States and especially our citizens. The questions posed at the European Council in Laeken in December 2001 - how to make the Union more effective and efficient; how to prepare it to play a more effective role in the wider world, and how to bring the Union closer to its citizens - have been well answered. Our new Constitution will equip us to meet, with confidence, the challenges that the Union is facing as it continues to widen and deepen.
The Union has undergone a lengthy and exhaustive process of Treaty change in recent years. It is now time for us to have the confidence to see the new Constitution as the Union's bedrock in the same way that the Treaty of Rome has served us so well over the course of more than half a century. Our focus must now turn fully to formulating and implementing those policies our citizens expect of us.
As our Union enlarges, continuing to be able to take decisions that will serve the needs of our people will be critical. The new European Constitution will enable the Union to engage constructively with the future challenges and opportunities that it will face.
During our six-month term as presidency, Ireland was honoured and privileged to welcome 10 new Member States into the European Union on 1 May. We marked the occasion by a formal and symbolic ceremony - a 'Day of Welcomes' - in Dublin. This was a truly historic moment for the European Union. It was a moment of great opportunity and hope for all the people of Europe.
Of course, the enlargement process did not end on 1 May. We are delighted to have achieved substantial progress in negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania. The European Council noted with great satisfaction that Bulgaria had provisionally closed negotiations in all outstanding chapters. In addition, Romania made significant progress, provisionally closing negotiations in three chapters of the acquis. As an example of a very concrete step towards accession, work has just commenced, under the Dutch presidency, on the drafting of the Accession Treaty. We encourage both countries to maintain and accelerate their efforts and look forward to their accession in January 2007, if they are ready.
The June European Council welcomed the significant progress which Turkey has continued to make in the reform process, and the sustained efforts of the Turkish Government to meet the Copenhagen political criteria. The Union has reaffirmed its commitment that, if the December European Council decision on the fulfilment of the political criteria is positive, accession negotiations with Turkey will be opened without delay. This decision will be taken on the basis of the Commission's report and recommendation. It will be taken in an objective and transparent manner.
Also in June the European Council decided that Croatia is a candidate for membership and that negotiations should begin early in 2005.
Our presidency had responsibility for managing the initial phase of negotiations on the future Financial Perspectives which will determine funding for the Union from 2007 to 2013. Our aim was to examine the Commission's ideas in detail and to offer feedback to the Commission in preparing its legislative proposals. This we did, and the June European Council found the report we prepared to be a useful contribution. In June we also agreed to reach political agreement on the dossier next year.
The focus of our presidency in the Justice and Home Affairs area was on the delivery of commitments under the Amsterdam Treaty and in the broader Tampere programme for the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. The last six months saw very substantial progress. We adopted the asylum qualifications directive and achieved political agreement on the asylum procedures directive. The two cornerstones for a common asylum system are now in place.
We moved the agreement on establishing a European Border Management Agency forward. This is a significant measure in the effort to fight illegal immigration. We also reached political agreement on the admission of third country nationals for studies and related purposes which recognises the positive contribution that legal migration makes to the Union. We worked to facilitate better access to justice across borders for citizens of the Union, adopting, for example, the victims of crime directive to ensure compensation to victims of violent crime.
2004 marks the end of this five-year Tampere programme. In June the European Council agreed that the time had come to launch the next phase of the process and the Commission will now prepare proposals for consideration in December.
In the related area of terrorism, and in the aftermath of the appalling terrorist attacks in Madrid, the March European Council adopted the Declaration on Combating Terrorism. In June we noted the significant progress made in implementing the measures set out in the Declaration and the work of the European Union Counter-Terrorism Coordinator. The next steps are now mapped out in the revised plan of action, which was also adopted in June.
In the external relations area we sought to give renewed coherence and impetus to the European Union’s complex external agenda guided by the European security strategy adopted by the European Council last December. I believe that our efforts in this area were very successful.
We emphasised effective multilateralism, conflict prevention and the development of a European Security and Defence Policy. We worked to strengthen and develop key partnerships, including the transatlantic relationship, on the basis of our shared interests and values. We worked hard to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals, with their strong emphasis on poverty eradication and sustainable development and the HIV/AIDS pandemic, were given the high focus that they deserve.
Many of you in this Parliament follow closely a range of external relations issues which are of particular interest to you and your constituents. You know, therefore, the progress that has been made during the past six months and what remains to be done in many challenging areas. Across the range of issues - be it the transatlantic relationship, the European Union's engagement with Africa or the need to strengthen our relations with Russia and with Asia - we can report real and lasting progress.
We have circulated a report on Ireland's presidency of the European Union to each Member of Parliament which sets out the key developments in the external agenda for our six-month term, as well as developments in relation to the Union's internal agenda. I will be happy to respond to your queries in the debate that follows.
It has been a challenging and rewarding six months for us all. At the beginning of the presidency, when I addressed this House, I said that our overall objective was to secure outcomes that would have a positive impact on the lives of Europe's people.
I strongly believe that, with the successful enlargement of the Union, the agreement on the European Constitution, the good progress made over the last six months on the Lisbon Agenda and Justice and Home Affairs, as well as in our relationships with key partners, the Union has made a great step forward. We must all continue to work to communicate better with our citizens so that they can become better informed and engaged in relation to developments within the Union which affect their daily lives in so many positive ways.
I have no doubt that the Netherlands presidency will be as successful as we know it will be challenging. Like Parliament, I wish it well.
The theme of Ireland's presidency was 'Europeans working together'. During the last six months, I believe that the Council and the European Parliament have worked together in an exemplary way. The experience has left me firmly convinced that, working together cooperatively - as Member States and institutions - we can build a better Europe and contribute to a fairer, more secure and more peaceful world.
It is a great honour for me to report on the six months of the Irish presidency, but it is not just on the six months, because in any presidency there is a lead-in of about a year. Thus, for the last 18 months I have been dealing with the leaders of the groups in Parliament. I wish to thank them for the time they gave to me and their visit to Dublin in December 2003. They gave me very good advice. Throughout the presidency both Minister Cowen and Minister Roche in particular were here many times. Courtesy was shown to all my colleagues. We were determined to work closely with Parliament, to give it a lot of time, listen to its views and to reflect that through the institutions and our work.
The experience has been enormously rewarding. It is a challenge for a small country. We do not have 800 officials to bring to European Council meetings, nor three planes. We do not have an enormous bureaucracy. We have Ambassador Anderson and her people, who worked very hard in Brussels for us, and our people who worked here in Parliament. It adds up to a small team and thus we got to know so many of the people here personally. For that reason, I wish to say how delighted I am to be here today, to thank you for your cooperation and to wish the new Parliament well, in particular the newly elected Members. They start an exciting part of their own political careers. I wish to say to the returning Members that I hope we in Ireland can keep up the good relationships that we have established. In particular I wish all my Irish colleagues of all political persuasions well for the six months ahead.
Lastly, as I said at the outset to you, President Borrell, you have a difficult job - a very demanding task - both within Parliament and internationally. I wish you every success with it.
(Loud applause)
Prodi, Romano,President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, my esteemed Taoiseach, ladies and gentlemen, first of all let me congratulate the new President once again on his recent election, and I am delighted to see the Members elected in all the Member States meeting at last in Parliament in an enlarged plenary. For the first time, one can reach out in this House and touch the new Europe, and this is an exciting and significant event.
Our Union now needs the tools for making decisions and taking action. This links in with what the Taoiseach has just said about the successes of the Irish Presidency and especially the outcome of the European Council. I congratulate the Irish Presidency, and Bertie Ahern in particular, together with his colleagues, on their diplomatic skills, political sense and great commitment to the European cause.
First, the Intergovernmental Conference closed during the last term with agreement on the European Constitution. As everyone knows, the last stretch on the road to a constitution is always the hardest, and the Irish Presidency directed the Conference with respect for everyone’s positions and attention to every detail. It proposed innovative solutions without losing the overall balance, and it convinced all parties that this is both a strong document and a serious and realistic compromise. In other words, this Constitutional Treaty is today the best possible agreement. We must not underestimate the work of the Taoiseach, who made a great personal effort to overcome the obstacles on the most sensitive issues. If we look back at the last five years, we cannot fail to see the extraordinary developments in our Union. When I addressed this House for the first time on 5 May 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam had only just come into force. Nobody imagined at that time that we might be having a new Constitution. Now, however, it seems obvious to us that not only does it exist but it is also needed, and the reason is simple: the Constitution enables the Union to operate more efficiently in the interests of our citizens.
The Constitution strengthens democracy, transparency and the sense of responsibility. It contains our values and our principles, and it provides a solid legal basis for our policies. I want to underline the fact that above all it includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights and introduces the double majority principle for Council decisions made by qualified majority. Nobody is pretending that this is a perfect Constitution. The Commission, as you well know, would have preferred stronger powers for the Union in certain areas, particularly economic governance. In this respect, I welcome the recent European Court of Justice decision clarifying certain rules in the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. Unanimity is still required in areas such as taxation, own resources, the financial perspective and, in part, social policy and foreign policy. Even so, the Constitution is clearly a great step forwards along the road to European integration, and in the near future we must all work together and focus on the ratification process.
Voters will be called upon to give their views on the Constitution in many countries in referendums. Whether there is a popular referendum or parliamentary ratification, this is the moment when positions must be made clear. Over the next few months, we must therefore explain to the voters what the Union is and what it is not, why we have to make it work properly and what the new rules are. We must launch a thorough debate on the Constitution and what it means for the future of Europe. We must ensure that the referendums or parliamentary votes are not just a reflection of the political situation in each Member State but provide an informed and considered response to the real issues at European level.
The real issue, as I was saying, is Europe itself, because rejecting the Constitution would be an enormous setback to the integration process. My fear, in effect, is that national questions will overshadow the real issues in the European debate and that short-term vested interests will end up jeopardising the step forwards that the Constitution will enable us to take. That means that first of all we have to raise the right questions in the national debates in each country. In particular I want to reply to a criticism that has been circulating for some time, according to which the Constitution is a step backwards in the European social dimension. I must say that that is not the case. The Constitution retains the Union’s common policies substantially unchanged, but creates a frame of reference within which the institutions can act for the common interest with greater focus. This applies both to measures involving the internal market and to social policy.
Ladies and gentlemen, I remind you that the Constitution also takes some steps forward. Full employment and social progress have become the Union’s goals, while gender equality and minority rights are recognised as common values of the Member States. It also lays down that the Union must promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as solidarity among the Member States; that the Union recognises and formally promotes the role of both sides of industry at European level and facilitates their dialogue while fully respecting their autonomy; and that the Union’s commercial policy must not hinder the organisation of social, educational and health services. Lastly, it recognises the value of public services and their role in promoting social and territorial cohesion. Overall, therefore, the Constitution is more ambitious, more coherent and more comprehensive than the current Treaties even in the social sphere.
These are essentially political rather than technical points, and we must continue our political work in order to make progress in this direction. Our citizens always take more notice of Europe’s social dimension, and a more political Union will thus help to consolidate it. I therefore beg all Members to ensure that the citizens know what the real issues on the table are when we have to ratify the Constitution. Voting for the Constitution also means voting for this diverse European social framework.
The Constitution is certainly an achievement of historic dimensions, but it is not the only decision taken by the last European Council. Among the other items, I recall the recognition of Croatia as a candidate country. This decision confirms the Union’s willingness to hold out the prospect of accession to the tormented countries in that part of our continent. Now that the Council believes that Croatia meets the Copenhagen criteria, negotiations can begin early in 2005. The Macedonian Government has also now submitted its own application to join and is working hard for its request to be accepted.
In the area of justice and home affairs, the action plan for the fight against terrorism has seen plenty of progress but also some uncertainties. We are still moving forwards on the Tampere programme, which now, however, must enter a new phase of implementation.
The Council has also asked the Member States to finalise the implementation of measures associated with the Lisbon strategy. This is a complicated item on which the steps taken and the progress made have been insufficient and, above all, do not meet the expectations we had in Lisbon when we approved this chapter.
Finally, I congratulate the Irish Presidency on having achieved agreement on the name of José Manuel Durão Barroso, who gained absolutely unanimous support in the Council; to me this agreement was a tour de force of democracy and politics. I also congratulate it on the decision to appoint Javier Solana as the Union’s Foreign Minister once the Constitution has come into force.
To José Manuel Durão Barroso and Javier Solana I offer my most sincere felicitations, and to Bertie Ahern and his colleagues my very warmest thanks.
Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Taoiseach and outgoing President of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by very warmly thanking the Irish presidency on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. It has been conducted very purposefully, very efficiently and very sympathetically, and the Taoiseach’s speech had joy in it. Joy, I think, is what Europe needs; the further progress of this Europe of ours must be a pleasure. The Irish Presidency has been a great success, and I would like to thank you personally, the Taoiseach of Ireland, the outgoing President of the European Council, and also your Minister for Europe, Dick Roche, most warmly and on behalf of our group as a whole.
(Applause)
It was a happy time for us, and the former President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, is now sitting over there; that is something else we have to get used to. My dear Pat, I hope we will have another opportunity to work closely together, and the fact that you are in the plenary today shows that the passion for Europe will still be with you. Again, heartfelt thanks for the great work you did as President of this Parliament; it will never be forgotten.
(Applause)
I would like to mention another Irishman, one whom perhaps not everyone will know, particularly not the new Members, but you know him – our friend and former colleague Joe McCartin, who was a Member of this Parliament from 1979 until the last European elections, and was the only member of our group to be honoured by the award of the Robert Schuman Medal. We need people like Joe McCartin, who do their duty day in and day out, for only those Members who do their duty day by day can help you and us to achieve things together.
(Applause)
As the outgoing President of the European Council, you spoke in terms of a great exercise in democracy. This continent of ours is so complicated, and its diversity makes it so problematic, that holding the whole thing together is a daily exercise, and chairmen of groups have particular experience of it. As you said, Europe must function, but the most important thing is – and we are grateful to you for saying so – that we in Europe have overcome totalitarianism and the dictatorships, and that it is democracy that holds us together. That is the great European project that brings us together across party boundaries.
(Applause)
You spoke about the Intergovernmental Conference. Let me say, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, that we see the great priority above all others as being the European Constitution. Even more than we have done already, we should be telling the public that it not only strengthens the European Parliament, but the national parliaments as well, and thus also parliamentary government and democracy in Europe. I think we have to put even greater stress on this. The Council of Ministers is made more transparent. We would also, of course, have preferred the Preamble to make reference not only to Europe’s religious heritage, but also to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. That has not, unfortunately, been achieved, and we very much regret it, but many of our common values are to be found in the Preamble and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, so that, all in all, we can say yes to it, and it will be signed in Rome, that great European city in which, in 1957, the Treaties of Rome were signed.
There are two people whose appointments you mentioned. These have to do with high ideals, and ideals – as you said – can become reality only if Europe, in the final analysis, actually works. You mentioned the former Prime Minister of Portugal, José Manuel Durão Barroso, with whom we will be having discussions this afternoon, and whom I knew both when he was leader of the Opposition, and then as Prime Minister. He has not changed. It often happens, when someone goes from being leader of the opposition to being Prime Minister, that their personality changes. He has always stayed the same, and I can only congratulate you on having proposed him. If he becomes President of the Commission, I am convinced that he will occupy this office with success.
We are also grateful, though, that you have again nominated Javier Solana, who, in both political and human terms, has done a tremendous job in recent years, as High Representative and then as the first Foreign Minister of the European Union. These two nominations are, I think, excellent, and we also have to consider them in their context. I would like to conclude by mentioning something that I have been getting worked up about for a long time. It is no reproach to you; I will also be saying it to the new President of the Council. In the family photographs, the President of the Commission and the President of the European Parliament are always standing somewhere well on the fringe. That is not on. The summit of Heads of State or Government is a Community institution, at which you cannot marginalise two important Presidents, the President of the Commission and the President of Parliament. Their place is with the President of the European Council in the middle of the family photograph. That is not just a matter of protocol,
(Applause)
and I would like to say that to the persons responsible in the General Secretariat of the Council. Protocol, however, is the symbolic expression of an attitude. It is not the intergovernmental Europe that we want; instead we want the Community Europe, which you have served, and for that we want to warmly thank you.
Hänsch (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Taoiseach, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the Irish Presidency of the Council was active in many areas, not always to my group’s satisfaction and not always successfully, but it is now my happy task, on behalf of my group, to congratulate you, Taoiseach, Mr President of the Council, on the historic and outstanding role you played as chairman of the Intergovernmental Conference that brought about the European Constitution. It was your astute, persistent and calm negotiation in the last six months that made this Intergovernmental Conference a success. It was a success for you, Taoiseach, and for your team.
I also want to express my personal gratitude to you for the way in which you involved Parliament’s two representatives, and its President, in the Intergovernmental Conference’s work. As you know, we had a few difficult stages to get through, but our being able to do so, and do so successfully, is something that we owe not only, but particularly, to you.
Indeed, not everything needed for the Constitution has been achieved, and I have to tell the House that not everything that was achieved was 100 per cent right. You know that as well as I do, as well as many others too. We did indeed have to make compromises, and some of them were hard for us, as representatives of the European Parliament, and for the governments of the Member States, to take. I am sure that you too, as head of the Irish Government, found some of the compromises difficult. It is also the case that some simple solutions that we arrived at in the Convention were made more complicated – there is a large number of supplementary protocols and declarations, restrictions on the one hand and exceptions on the other. That must not be allowed to obscure the big picture, the great achievement of the Intergovernmental Conference.
Although public attention has, over the past months, been focussed on a few contentious points, the Intergovernmental Conference adopted over 90% of the Convention draft, virtually without any debate. In saying this, I am not doing as the former President of the Convention did and counting words; that is nonsense, or, to be less blunt about it, rather childish. Rather, I can see that the structure, coherence and substance of the draft Constitution produced by the Convention have not been touched. That is the first great success, which also confirms the methodology that the Convention adopted. The second is democracy; although there are some deficiencies in that area, the European Parliament’s new status as a legislator with full and equal rights, the fact that the election of the President of the Commission is to be proceeded with in future not only in the light of the European elections, but also following a consultation procedure before the candidates are nominated – that, too, I regard as a success.
You yourself know, Taoiseach, that we, as representatives of the European Parliament, had to draw a red line when it came to the Budget procedure of the future. On a personal level, I am grateful to you for ensuring that we did not reach that red line, but instead were able to come up with a good, workable compromise in the teeth of all those finance ministers who, of all things, wanted to make changes to Parliament’s budgetary rights, and to change them for the worse.
(Applause)
The European Union has greater capacity to act and more transparency. Let me just say two things in general terms. We know that this is not the constitution of a European federal state; it is the constitution of a union of citizens and states, which will always be more than just provinces of a Federal Republic of Europe. The EU is not a copy, at European level, of the European nation-state of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is something sui generis, and so we turn a deaf ear to the critics who keep on drawing comparisons between us and the American Constitution, saying that this draft Constitution is far too complicated, too long, and so on. None of that is fair.
We must judge the Constitution in terms of what Europe needs. The Constitution must be judged by whether or not it manages to establish on a common basis the joining together of twenty-five different peoples and states that have plundered, murdered, waged warfare on and devastated one another for centuries. The Constitution must be judged by whether or not it can bring together on the basis of a shared constitution, twenty-five and more European states and peoples, all of which, while being bound together by their political destiny, want to retain their own identity, language, culture, and historical memories.
Our having achieved this is a great and historic triumph in the annals of the European Union, one in which the Irish Presidency of the Council has played an outstanding part. What matters now is that the peoples of Europe, through their parliaments and through referendums, should make the Constitution a political reality. My group, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, will play its part in this, and we will make sure that Europe gets a Constitution that will take it into the new century.
(Applause)
Duff (ALDE).– Mr President, my group also wishes to congratulate the Taoiseach and his team for their prize-winning presidency: canny, courageous and committed. As you say, this Parliament can also claim a share in the success story. What we have achieved together is something rather remarkable: we have changed the political discourse in Europe, we have established a constitutional framework for a Europe that can stand on its own feet in world affairs and deliver effective common policy to address our shared problems.
The IGC accepted the same concept of constitutional fidelity that Member States show to the Union, a concept that informed the proceedings throughout the European Convention. Although there were certainly remnants of the old-style quarrels about the pecking order between states, the IGC successfully managed to transcend these and leaves us with a fairly clear picture of what the European Union will be like for the foreseeable future. There is a sense of constitutional settlement, of democratic legitimisation that this package deal has achieved, a sense that previous IGCs have failed to establish. The European Union comes out stronger. We trust each other more and are more trustworthy for the citizen and the outside world.
This Parliament will now develop its own positive critique of the outcome of the IGC and prepare to exploit it, but we must also explain and justify to a fairly sceptical electorate what has happened. We must be a campaigning Parliament for the Constitution. We can be proud of our own role inside the process so far and we must not be shy of marketing Parliament on the strength of the success. This time Parliament cannot absolve itself of responsibility for the outcome of the IGC. We were there, we were players. It could be that a referendum will be lost somewhere in Europe. It will be partly our fault as Members of the European Parliament, and that of the political parties that sent us here, should a referendum fail. It will also be our problem to resolve thereafter.
(Applause)
Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, I too thank the Irish Presidency for the cheerful and elegant way in which it steered the Presidency through a very complicated period, and I particularly acknowledge the charming courtesy of Minister Roche, who in all these months succeeded in never answering the questions I put to him. The Presidency conducted the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations in a truly gracious manner, but it arrived at a result that is a long way from the text adopted by the Convention, and 10% of it – Mr Hänsch, please note – is very hard to accept.
The inconsistencies between the first and third parts of the Constitution, the limitations and full implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the potential conflict between the President of the Commission and the President of the Council, the retention of the power of veto in too many areas of competence, the exclusion of the European Parliament from the ratification process – these are all serious steps backward, courteously guided by the Irish Presidency. In the same way, the Presidency conducted negotiations for the Commission without ever consulting Parliament, presiding over the naval battle – truly depressing for any Euroenthusiast – between small and large Member States for this or that supercommissioner and finally arriving at the appointment of a respectable gentleman, but one who emerges most of all as the Member States’ man at the head of what we would like to see as the government of Europe.
Mr Ahern spoke of the asylum agreement. The sad experience of the 37 African citizens confined on board the German ship Cap Anamur for weeks outside Italian territorial waters and today illegally detained shows quite clearly that Europe is still keeping silent on asylum and that asylum policy and control of illegal immigration, which Mr Ahern mentioned, are still being seriously and dangerously confused.
Mr Ahern, the rights of migrants have been a low priority for your Presidency, but also the lack of action over Guantanamo Bay and the silence over the passenger name records (PNR) issue show that your Presidency probably had other priorities. I thank you all the same. Our group has enjoyed collaborating with your Presidency, but it is clear that, once again, the Council has shown that it wants to lead the European Union, while we would like it to share its power a little with the other institutions.
Kaufmann (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, it was in a difficult situation that Ireland took up the Presidency. Your time as President of the Council saw the historic enlargement of the EU, the adoption of the Constitution and the elections to the European Parliament.
What concerns me in particular is the low turnout at the European elections, although that was not primarily a problem with the Irish Presidency. We MEPs, rather than merely continually lamenting this sad state of affairs, should be learning whatever lessons we can from it. The fact is that fewer and fewer members of the public have any confidence in the European Union, and the reason for this is that the Community is not there for them and fails to respond to their day-to-day concerns.
According to Eurostat, some 70% of people in the European Union wanted the issue of unemployment to be at the heart of European policy-making and of the election campaign, whereas in fact the debates were dominated by national issues and institutional EU-speak. We really cannot go on like this! You are right, Mr President of the Commission, to say that what matters most in future is the social Europe, but it is important that, instead of us just talking about it, the European Union must take action once and for all; in the eyes of the public, only actions count.
Now, with the ratification of the Constitution, we have the opportunity to have in-depth discussions with the public about the European Union’s future. It is because people are directly affected by it that they need to be asked straight questions, as President Chirac of France said. I think he got it right. What is feasible in France or the UK must be a possibility in Germany, my own country.
I therefore call on all Members of this House to work with persistence towards the holding of referendums on the Constitution in every Member State of the European Union and, above all, for in-depth dialogue with people on the future of the European Union.
(Applause)
Bonde (IND/DEM).–(DA) Thank you to the Irish Presidency for its splendid technical implementation of what is the largest planned loss of democracy to date. Never before have Europeans in one go faced having to lose so much power. Each time, power is shifted from the electorate to other people. Nowhere will the electorate now have had their say in drafting the Constitution. The right to amend the Constitution is to be shifted from the electorate to the prime ministers who, in future, will be able to amend the Constitution themselves. The process is described in terms of passerelles – a word that we cannot translate into Danish but whose content is conveyed by the term coup d’Etat.
The right to be given the last word is to be stolen from the electorate. With the Constitution, a group of Heads of State or Government will obtain the right to give the EU more power without ever having to consult the electorate again. In a long list of new areas, the right to amend the laws following subsequent elections will pass from the electorate to a majority of non-elected Commissioners and a qualified majority of officials and ministers behind closed doors in secret working parties and councils. The right to elect the executive and hold them responsible is to disappear in favour of a top-down bureaucracy without democratic control, administrative law and ministerial responsibility.
The right to regret the outcome of an election and take a different decision is to be taken away from the electorate, which will only be able to get its decisions changed with the approval of the Commission in Brussels – the same Commission in which we, as voters, are to lose the right to have our own national Commissioners. Without any participation by our countries, a majority of the Commission will be able to adopt a Commission law that takes precedence over each country’s constitution, even if there has not been a single person from that country present.
In the course of a long and bloody history, the Irish have fought for their own democracy. During its Presidency, Ireland has paved the way for having to lose that right again. If we are to limit democracy, let it at least be done democratically. The electorate is entitled to a vote. Put the Constitution to the vote in all the countries, preferably on the same day.
In this Parliament, we have created a group for independence and democracy that calls upon the electorate to reject the proposed Constitution. We should like to invite opponents of the Constitution to set up a common forum to help organise the resistance. Please note that we are to meet during the next sitting, on Tuesday at 1 p.m. after the vote, if you wish to help defend the right to our democracy against the new draft Constitution.
(Applause from the Independence and Democracy Group)
Crowley (UEN).– Mr President, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the Taoiseach, Mr Bertie Ahern, and the Irish Government, for their tremendously successful presidency. It is one which has delivered on important political initiatives that were stalled or delayed for so long under previous presidencies. The most moving sight during the Irish presidency was the raising of the flags of our ten new partner countries at Aras an Uachtarain, the home of the Irish President. That image represents the final lifting of the artificial barriers that separated eastern and western Europe for so long.
Taoiseach, you have proven your skills as a negotiator, as somebody who understands the difficulties each country faces, particularly when discussing the Constitution. You were able to find a way for those countries to ensure that their vital national interests were not overturned or upset, in particular as regards the doctrine of conferral within that Treaty, clarifying the issues of subsidiarity and proportionality, as well as ensuring the continuation of equality between all Member States and in the application of the rules. These are very important issues for the continuing development and growth of the European Union.
I fully commend you, Taoiseach, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Brian Cowen, for all your work on this. I also want to mention the Minister for European Affairs, Mr Dick Roche, who here in Parliament was so open to meeting with individuals and political groups, who engaged fully with all Members on any issues or discussions that needed to be carried out - not only with regard to the Treaty, but also with regard to ongoing political developments here within Parliament. He is an example to other Ministers for European Affairs who come to this Parliament as regards how best to engage and obtain Parliament's support.
I would also like to mention - as I have on previous occasions in this House - the role of Ambassador Anne Anderson and the Irish civil service. They have proven their efficiency and professionalism in bringing together different ideas and ensuring that there was a seamless run from the very start to the very end of the presidency, with full delivery of all the commitments and promises made. Indeed, their vigour, their enthusiasm, and most importantly, their all-round good humour in dealing with difficult issues should be recognised.
These new roles – of selling the Treaty, of ensuring that the citizens understand its benefits and of ensuring that we show the peoples of Europe that it does not undermine their own national interests – will help us guarantee that the European Union functions smoothly. They ensure that there is equality between all the Member States and help us to guarantee that we can move forward within a framework suitable for further building and a more efficient operation of the Union as we enlarge even further.
During the presidency many important summits took place. The biggest and most important of all was the EU-US summit which took place in County Clare. This was the first step in rebuilding the relationship between the US and the European Union. Many people in America now recognise that unilateralism is not the way to go, that we require cooperation, not just in geopolitical terms but also in trade terms, and to ensure that the United Nations and other international bodies can operate effectively.
Taoiseach, I want to congratulate you on being able to bring forward a nominee for President of the Commission in Prime Minister Barroso. It was difficult to find somebody who could encapsulate all the desires and wishes of all the Member States, someone who will also have the necessary degree of independence to give proper political leadership to the Commission in the future. We have in Mr Barroso the ideal candidate. I hope there will be majority support for his nomination in the House tomorrow, and I am delighted that our group will be fully endorsing and supporting his nomination for Commission President.
Finally, Taoiseach, you deserve a rest after all your hard work. Minister Roche deserves a boost after all his work and, most importantly of all, the civil servants deserve not only a good pat on the back, but also perhaps a few extra euros as a result of the new agreements!
(Applause)
Czarnecki, Ryszard (NI).–(PL) Mr President, Taoiseach, ladies and gentlemen, the Irish Presidency will go down in history mainly because it saw the greatest ever enlargement of European structures. Only now has the European Union become genuinely European. Enlargement has been merely formal and political in nature, however. It has failed to impact on a number of areas. One of these is the labour market, where Europeans are still being segregated into first and second class citizens. The transitional periods before citizens of the New Union can enjoy full access to the labour market demonstrate that Europe remains divided. They bring to mind Animal Farm by the British author George Orwell. In that novel, some were deemed to be more equal than others.
Such a Union is a disgrace. Changes must be introduced at the earliest opportunity. There has to be an end to all discrimination within Europe.
I should like to address one comment to the Taoiseach. He referred to Old Europe and New Europe. It can hardly be appropriate for him to refer to Central and Eastern Europe as New Europe, when the history of the nations concerned goes back over a thousand years. I suggest to the Taoiseach that he would be better advised to refer to the New Union, which is also the Old Europe.
President Prodi spoke of increasing the Commission’s competence in economic affairs. I trust this does not include the competence to raise taxes in Member States, notably in the new Member States. I can assure you that the citizens would not tolerate such a Union.
Finally, there is something I should like to thank the Taoiseach for. Throughout his country’s six month Presidency of the European Union he never forgot that the Union is first and foremost a Europe of the nations and must remain so.
Doyle (PPE-DE).– Mr President, on behalf of my colleagues in the Irish delegation in the PPE-DE Group, I wish you every success in your term as President. I should like to acknowledge the wonderful work that our former Irish President, Pat Cox, did while in your Chair by saying that you have a hard act to follow. Welcome.
I should like to welcome personally the Taoiseach, Minister Roche, Ambassador Anderson and all of those from the Irish permanent representation here to Parliament this morning.
On behalf of all my colleagues in the PPE-DE Group I should like to add a few words to the summation of the sixth Irish presidency of the European Union, at what has truly been a historic time. We use the word 'historic' glibly, but it has been a time when our central and east European colleagues, along with Cyprus and Malta, have rejoined the European family. I would particularly like to commend the Irish permanent representation for their careful planning and preparation of the solid administrative, diplomatic and policy foundations that underpinned the great success of our presidency.
When Ireland unexpectedly took over the mantle of mediator in the wake of the IGC's failure to reach agreement on the new constitution for Europe last December, it seemed a daunting challenge. Taoiseach, your success in this area has become your and our crowning glory. The selection of a new Commission President was also a testament to your sound negotiating skills and those of your team. Whether it was responding to the tragic Madrid terrorist blasts in March, repairing transatlantic ties, or celebrating the historic enlargement of the EU by welcoming our new colleagues to the Community in May, the actions taken by our presidency were measured and appropriate.
So much was done in these areas it is perhaps unsurprising that the core Lisbon objectives of promoting economic competitiveness and sustainable growth must now be left for the Dutch presidency to address - a bit of 'pass the parcel' here, I suggest. This includes the important Services Directive, your promised initiative to promote better regulation and the implementation of national reform partnerships in the run-up to the mid-term review of the Lisbon Agenda.
On 14 January 2004, in welcoming you at the start of your presidency, Taoiseach, I warned that most businesses, particularly the SMEs in Europe, feel that time is running out - if it has not already run out - for Lisbon. I said that we need concrete actions and not just repetitions of wish-lists and words. At that time, I asked you and your presidency for facts and the specifics which would turn your plans into reality. It was the eighth time - and today is the ninth time - that I and my colleagues have sat through the twice-yearly mantra of lip service to Lisbon. What exactly has been done to make the Lisbon Agenda a reality under your watch - apart from setting a menu for the Dutch to get on with?
For the Irish Government I hope that the increased project management and organisational capacity that you particularly have demonstrated this year, Taoiseach, will now be taken home and applied to the domestic scene. I am not talking about transposing EU directives onto national statute books, but about proper consultation of stakeholders, proper drafting of legislation that takes account of national requirements, proper implementation of legislation and proper enforcement of these laws. At every stage of the domestic chain our record has been extremely bad: only last week nine more infringement proceedings were brought against Ireland in the environmental area. The Nitrates Directive is a case in point: years late, cobbled together at the eleventh hour, minimal consultation, less planning and a total mess.
You, Taoiseach, will now have to deliver at home. I am delighted to acknowledge the great success of your presidency of the European Council, but this is against a backdrop of some neglect on the Irish front. Indeed, the nomination yesterday of Minister McCreevy as our Irish Commissioner here brings a wry smile to my face. I wish him well and I welcome your nomination, but the term 'poacher turned gamekeeper' comes to mind in relation to European matters.
My call to you, Taoiseach, is that you take the skills and capacities you have built up as President of the European Council back home. Make your Irish presidency a role model for the continuation of the Irish Government.
I thank, in particular, my colleagues Mr McCartin, Mrs Banotti and Mr Cushnahan, who retired at the end of the last parliamentary term. In particular I should like to mention Mr McCartin and the acknowledgement that Mr Poettering, Chairman of the PPE-DE Group, gave him on winning the Schuman Medal for 25 years' service to this Parliament: a wonderful testament to his contribution here. Between them, my three colleagues gave 60 years' service to the European Parliament. Those of us replacing them have a lot to do to catch up.
I thank you, Taoiseach and Minister Roche. I also thank Ambassador Anderson for all the excellent work that she and the permanent representation have done. We were very proud of your Irish presidency.
De Rossa (PSE).– Mr President, I wish to congratulate you on your election to your new post and I wish you well. I join with those who have praised the Taoiseach and his team today for the successful conclusion of the constitutional negotiations, in particular the retention of the broad framework, values, objectives and citizens' rights which the European Convention had negotiated. By doing so the legitimacy of the European integration project has been enhanced and the potential for creating a more democratic and inclusive Europe has also been created.
It must be said, however, that the Irish presidency also presided over a rather regrettable list of failures. The failure to protect temporary agency workers, the failure to push for debt cancellation for the world's poorest, the failure to stand up to George W. Bush and his zealotry, and the failure to advance the Lisbon Agenda in a socially inclusive manner. The Council and the Commission also ganged up in an appalling effort to push through the legislation on providing personal data records relating to air transport to the United States, in the face of opposition from the European Parliament.
Taoiseach, you are not here to answer for your domestic policies. However, I am appalled at your decision to nominate Mr McCreevy as Irish Commissioner. He is one of the most right-wing finance ministers in Europe. He is one of the finance ministers who sought to deny this Parliament its democratic right to control the budget of the European Union. He believes in providing incentives for the rich by giving them more wealth, more profits and more tax incentives – and in providing incentives for the poor by giving them a kick in the arse. If we believe in a social-market Europe rather than in a supermarket Europe, we should not allow Mr McCreevy near the economic levers of this Union.
Harkin (ALDE).–A Uachtaráin, is a cairde, gabhaim buichos libh as an deis seo cupla focal a rá ar an uachtaranacht Eireannach agus sula dtéim nios fuide, ba mhaith liom a rá seo, go n-eirigh go geall léis an iarratais an Gaeilge a aithint mar theanga oifigúil san Aontas Eorpach.
Do gach tír ach go hairithe do na miontiortha is rud an tabhachtach í an fhéin - iulach culturtha. Is feidir linn bheith in ár bhfior Eorpaigh ach ag an am cheanna, tuigimid gur cuid riach tanach dar bhféiniulacht í ar dteanga.
(Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on the Irish presidency. Before I make my comments I would like to wish the Irish Government well in their application to have Irish recognised as an official working language in the EU. For all nations, but perhaps smaller nations in particular, cultural identity is very important. We can all be true Europeans and yet fully retain our cultural identity and language is a vital part of this.)
So, moving on from language to what I consider to have been a very successful Irish presidency, I want to congratulate the Taoiseach, his ministers, and in particular Minister Cowen and Minister Roche, who is with the Taoiseach here today. I also congratulate Ambassador Anderson and the Irish civil service.
The major achievement of the Irish presidency was to secure agreement on a Treaty that establishes a Constitution for Europe but, allied to this, a key priority was to communicate Europe better to its citizens. Therein lies the opportunity and the danger: the opportunity to engage citizens from all of the 25 countries in the European project, but equally the danger of failing to achieve that objective. While politicians must lead, that leadership must be accompanied by the involvement of citizens and the promotion of civil society. Otherwise, as a famous poet from my own city of Sligo, W.B. Yeats, once wrote: 'The centre cannot hold'. For us and for Europe the centre must hold, because the very future of the European Union depends on our efforts to involve our citizens and to communicate our positive vision for Europe.
(Applause)
Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I too welcome you here and wish to thank you. I was born in Salzburg, a city re-established on Roman ruins by Irish monks in the tenth century, who drained the swamps, laid the foundations of the city and mediated in the disputes between tribal chiefs. So you will understand why we are not amazed when Irish missionaries civilise Europe and carry out the fundamental tasks of draining swamps – including the swamps of national egoisms – and laying foundations, including those of European democracy.
While we are on the subject of mediating in disputes between tribal chiefs, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am grateful to you for your achievement in civilising Europe. You have maintained the constitution’s architecture, and that is no doubt your most crucial achievement. The governments, of course, have given us a lesson in who really wields the power. On the basis of possessing, formally, the right of final decision, they have been arrogant enough to rearrange the Convention’s draft according to their own tastes and, on various points, to take their pick. That is a pity. What makes the lesson in power all the sadder is that Parliament could, now that we are dealing with the Presidency of the Commission, deliver an appropriate response, for it, formally speaking, has the right of final decision and could well show whether or not it is willing to make the decision more real than a formality and compel respect for the House. That would show who has the will to power and who does not. Thank you, Mr President.
Where the Constitution was to be signed was a long-standing bone of contention for the Italian Presidency, which made it possible for something to be able to be signed in Rome by coming up with the text. That is a quite different achievement, and one for which we are grateful.
It is not quite accurate to say that the Convention draft has come through unscathed. Removing the Legislative Council from the Convention draft amounted to doing away with one of the Convention’s great ideas and with what would have been an immense democratic leap forward in terms of the separation of powers, one that has now not been taken. What we have is the Council making more laws, with all the dubious legitimacy of legislation by a government. Out of double majority, a formula for decision-making that every citizen could understand and accept, we have brought forth another mass of confusing mathematical formulae. Where the Convention envisaged decisions by qualified majority, unanimous decisions have been introduced, and the EU’s capacity to act has suffered thereby. The social dimension, too – and that is an area where the Convention was not successful either – has been further circumscribed, with, instead of full employment, merely a high level of it.
I do not believe that Parliament has had much of a part to play in the later stages of all this. Now, though, the governments will need us if people are to accept this Constitution and if their parliaments are to ratify it.
Let me express my particular gratitude to you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, for having held to the original concept of the Constitution and of the Convention draft.
(Applause)
IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCA Vice-President
McDonald (GUE/NGL).–A Uachtaráin, a Uachtaráin in oifig, a Thaoisigh, tá mé mórálach as a bheith anseo inniu mar chuid de chéad-fhoireann Shinn Féin i bParlaimint na hEorpa.
(Mr President, Mr President-in Office, Taoiseach, I am proud to be here today as part of the first Sinn Féin team in the European Parliament.)
As Irish republicans, following in the tradition of Bobby Sands MP, we are committed to the politics of equality, justice and freedom. We bring Sinn Féin's agenda for change, for Irish unity and independence to this forum.
I would like to acknowledge the work of the Irish presidency over the last six months and to wish the new Dutch presidency well.
Sinn Féin believes that the enlarged EU must adopt a new set of priorities. We oppose attempts to turn the EU into a superstate or a military and economic superpower. We support EU reform that gives power back to the people, the elimination of poverty, support for public services, revitalised rural economies, and the reform and strengthening of the United Nations.
This, we believe, is the new direction for Europe. This is the EU that we will work towards.
Sinnott (IND/DEM).– Mr President, I can safely say that we in Ireland have been proud of our Irish presidency and of our Taoiseach in the role of President. This presidency was characterised by enthusiasm and diplomacy.
Despite a short six months in which to work, Ireland sponsored positive initiatives like the 'Communicating Europe' initiative. However, I am alarmed by the unholy haste in pushing through such a sweeping, power-shifting and undemocratic initiative as the proposed European Constitution.
We have had the Irish presidency. We were privileged to host the welcome of the ten new nations last May in Dublin. We have shared our Taoiseach with the world. Mr Ahern's slogan at home is 'more to do'. We would say to Mr Balkenende and the new presidency that there is more to do to bring greater protection to vulnerable people, to bring about equality and respect among nations, to bring help to suffering countries like Sudan and to bring democracy and transparency to the EU project itself.
To Mr Ahern I say: now it is time to come home. There is more to do. You have a disability bill to introduce, a health and education system to sort out, fishermen and women, farmers and many small businesses in great difficulties, and numerous environmental crises. You have demonstrated the potential in the world of a small, vibrant and - I remind you - still neutral nation. Now bring your energy home.
Well done to you Taoiseach, and to your team. You have more to do. Go raibh maith agat, which means 'thank you'. I also greet Mr Cox and extend go raibh maith agat to him as well.
Krasts (UEN). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. I should like to thank the Taoiseach and his team for their accomplishments. The result gives grounds to refute, entirely, those speculations, which were voiced before the start of the Irish Presidency, that the Irish Presidency would be time lost for the European Union in matters of vital importance. In reality the Irish Presidency turned out to be so successful that it makes one question the ineffectiveness that is imputed to the rotation of the Presidency of the European Union. There was all-round pessimism regarding the possibilities of the draft European Union Constitution being accepted during the Irish Presidency. As a member of the European Convention, I can now safely say that the version approved during the Irish Presidency is more viable than that on which we were able to reach agreement in the Convention. In this regard, one should not forget, of course, the achievements of the Italian Presidency. To my mind, the proposed candidate for President of the European Commission, who was named at the close of the Presidency from amongst the supporters of a market economy, can be deemed as successful. I hope that the proposed candidate will also gain the support of Parliament. As a representative of a country on the eastern border of the European Union, the Presidency's realistically founded position as regards the development of relations between the European Union and Russia has earned my respect. This contrasts favourably with those opinions which, unfortunately, one often observes in the European Union's relations with Russia. I hope that the quality of the Irish Presidency will set a standard and create a favourable spirit of competitiveness in those who work for the good of the European Union. Thank you.
Allister (NI).– Mr President, in my first remarks in the House I wish to state that the great sense of honour that I feel derives not from membership of this institution, but from the confidence in me manifested by the people of Northern Ireland in making me their first choice in terms of representation in this Parliament.
It is to them, not to the institutions of Europe, that I owe my allegiance. My purpose in being here is to defend and promote the interests and good name of Northern Ireland and to secure for its people their fair share of European funding.
Turning to the Irish presidency, I am sure that Mr Ahern will remember my illustrious predecessor telling him six months ago in this House, with characteristic humour, that the most beneficial thing likely to emerge from the Irish presidency would be that Mr Ahern would have less time to meddle in the affairs of British Northern Ireland. And so it proved to be that meddle time - happily - was at a premium. That apart, the legacy on the constitutional front which this presidency bequeaths to us is not, in my opinion, welcome or happy. The new constitution is nothing to be proud of for anyone who believes in democratic control and its essential companion, national sovereignty. It is an affront to and an assault upon both.
I appeal for honesty in the presentation of this Constitution, for recognition that it is a charter designed to facilitate and build a European superstate with ever-diminishing national powers and ever-increasing centralised powers and all the apparatus of statehood. Statehood properly lies in nation states and that is where it should remain.
Finally, I compliment and reassure Mr Ahern on his continuing mastery of the English language so that he might have the confidence to abandon the foolish notion of wasting millions of euros of taxpayers' money on making Irish an official language of these institutions. I say to him to leave such archaic nonsense to Sinn Féin, from whom one expects no better.
Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, I think Mr Allister threw something pretty amazing into the debate by saying, as he did, ‘I am against the European institutions, but in favour of Europe giving Northern Ireland lots of money.’ That is not, I think, the way we should think in this House.
(Applause)
The region from which I come was – like Mr Voggenhuber’s part of the world – converted to Christianity by an Irishman, Saint Boniface, known as the Apostle to the Germans. I hope you will not come to the same end as Boniface, who was killed by the Frisians, most of whom are now Dutch. It is of course purely fortuitous that we now have a Dutch Presidency of the Council.
From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank you, Taoiseach, your Foreign Minister Dick Roche, your team, but also a number of people sitting further back in its second, third and fourth rows, whose extraordinary dedication and expertise have made it possible for us to have a European Constitution. In doing that, Ireland has written history. This constitution does not bring about a superstate; instead, it creates balance by allocating competences, a role of which national parliaments fight shy. It is meant to create a fair balance between the levels. The citizens have a part to play, because the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives them rights, and so, in future, there can be no such playing about with the presidency of the Commission as we have experienced this year, for it will be the citizens who will decide who the President of the Commission is to be. We will see decisive improvements. There will be a canon of values; it is a veritable miracle that twenty-five states can agree on one that is binding, one that – as I see it – is founded upon the Christian conception of what man is. This canon of values will enable us to really join together in making policies, rather than relying on the mechanistic process envisaged by the old treaties. It also gives the EU a capacity to act.
It is vital that we should all go back to our own countries and ensure that the ratification goes through. We should not be discussing – as people are in some of our countries, including my own – what is most advantageous in terms of party or domestic politics, or how we can thereby make a name for ourselves. I hope that the governments – and oppositions too – in all our countries will be strong enough to embark upon this ratification process with a sense of responsibility for us all and not with a view to showing their party to its best advantage in domestic politics. That is what our task will be now.
(Applause)
Goebbels (PSE).–(FR) Mr President, Mr Hänsch has just told us how highly the Socialists think of what the Irish Presidency did at the Intergovernmental Conference. If one compares Mr Ahern’s actions with Mr Berlusconi’s, one might well wonder why the future Convention does not make provision for the presidency of the Union to be rotated among the smaller States, since those States’ presidencies seem have been more productive than have certain Heads of State or Government whose greatness lies only in the size of their respective countries.
Yet any presidency does no more than preside; it does not decide anything. The greatness of a presidency lies in its power to propose and in its sense of compromise. The draft Constitution is far from perfect, but it is thanks to Ireland it exists at all. Having said that, I should mention the fact that although, overall, the Irish Presidency can be assessed as positive, there remain, nevertheless, considerable areas in which the picture is not so bright. My friend, Mr De Rossa, has just expressed the Socialists’ regrets about the Irish Presidency’s performance on social matters. The European Trade Union Confederation has drawn up a ‘social test’ for the actions of the Irish Presidency. Of the ten points tested, six are regarded as somewhat negative, including, in particular, the failure to take action to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda, the lack of interest in protecting public services, and certain directives of a social nature. Mr Savary will refer to other failings in the performance of the Irish Presidency, in particular the scandalous decision taken by the Council to supply the Bush administration with personal details about transatlantic passengers.
Finally, Mr President, let me finish by mentioning an event which is not directly concerned with the performance of the Irish Presidency, but which will have important consequences. I want to talk about the judgment, by the Court of Justice, on the Stability and Growth Pact. I was among those who criticised the Commission for having brought the matter before the Court, because the Stability Pact is a policy matter and is not governed by the courts. However, in that respect I have to admit that the judges at the Luxembourg Court have resisted the temptation to meddle in the Union’s economic policy. In a Solomonic judgment, the Court has reminded the Commission that the Ecofin Council does indeed have the power of assessment, but that the Ecofin Council does not necessarily have to follow the Commission’s recommendations.
At the same time, however, Ministers have been called to order for failing to observe the rules which they themselves laid down. Nevertheless, as far as the pact is concerned, the most important point in the Court’s judgment remains the confirmation of the Commission’s sole right of initiative. Thus the Council cannot amend the rules ‘without being prompted again by the Commission’. The Commission’s right of initiative is thus upheld, but all rights, President Prodi, also include obligations. The Commission now has an obligation to make proposals to turn a ‘stupid’ Stability Pact into a really intelligent pact.
Sbarbati (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the Irish Presidency for the diplomacy, method and correctness with which it approached its difficult work, eventually achieving the objective of approving the Constitution. I only regret the fact that the Italian Presidency was not successful in this.
I also thank President Pat Cox and the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, who, through their constant, determined action, have brought the term to a close and achieved two great objectives together: enlargement and the Constitution. They have been inspired by a different vision of Europe, which today presents us with a great Europe, strengthened through the democratic legal basis represented by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Constitution together: Europe as a civil power.
The Irish Presidency’s exceptional mediation has given us something which, if not perfect, is at least what we need today to be able to stand united and play a political role for peace on the world stage. Now Parliament must commit itself to an extensive campaign in favour of the Constitution with a view to success in the ratification process. For this reason, Mr President, I dare to suggest that a specific heading should be inserted in the budget to provide timely and necessary funding for the initiative, in order to make the people of Europe more aware and to bring them effectively closer to our institutions.
de Brún (GUE/NGL).–A Uachtaráin, a Thaoisigh, Seasann Sinn Féin ar son an athraithe in Éirinn agus ar fud an Aontais Eorpaigh. Táimid ag dúil le bheith ag obair leo siúd ar mhaith leo Eoraip chothrom a fheiceáil, Eoraip dhomhanda fhreagrach.
(Sinn Fein stands for change in Ireland and across the EU and we look forward to working with others who want to see a Europe of equals and a globally responsible EU.)
I look forward to building support for the Irish peace process and Irish unity and independence. It makes sense for Ireland to be treated as one whether in employment, agriculture or human rights.
In Ireland we are engaged in a peace process to which the European Union, the United States and others have contributed greatly. I welcome the Council's call for the Commission to examine the possibility of extending funds for Peace II and the International Fund for Ireland.
Despite much progress, the peace process in Ireland faces great difficulties with the democratic institutions suspended by the British Government. Just last week people in my home city of Belfast were penned into their communities while a sectarian unionist parade was forced through.
Iarraim ar Uachtarántacht na hIsiltíre agus ar mo chomhghleacaithe anseo díriú ar phróiseas síochána na hÉireann ... I would ask the Netherlands presidency to focus also on the Irish peace process.
Evans, Jonathan (PPE-DE).– Mr President, the agreement reached on the Constitution at the June European Council was a bad one for Europe. My position on the Constitution – and that of my fellow European Democrats – is clear and well known. We believe that the Constitution is a mistake. We believe that Europe does not need a Constitution: countries have constitutions, and the EU is not – nor should it seek to become – a country or a state.
The Laeken Summit of 2001 called upon the European Convention and the IGC to ensure that the outcome of their work brought the European institutions closer to the people. I do not think that has happened. The Constitution does nothing to involve the nation states and people more closely in the decision-making processes of the Union. In fact, with major extensions in majority voting, the powers of the centre are greatly increasing. This is a view that has perhaps been endorsed by the remarks recently made by the Dutch Foreign Minister, suggesting that we need to engage in a process of self-reflection with a view to deciding whether some policy areas should not be transferred back from European to national level. These are interesting remarks from the government that now holds the presidency of the Union for the next six months. They demonstrate that I am not alone in putting forward these ideas.
Europe could have chosen a better way. It could have decided to tidy up the treaties in a simplifying document; it could have given national parliaments a real say in EU legislation; it could have looked more closely at what is done by national governments; and clearly it could have set out an obligation for the Union to tackle fraud and maladministration. I feel that we have missed an opportunity.
I welcome the fact that France is to have a vote on the Constitution. I welcome the debate initiated by Mr Stoiber on a possible referendum in Germany. It is right that the people have the final say in deciding their own future. The leader of my own party believes in a live-and-let-live Europe, in other words, one where those who wish to integrate more closely should be enabled to do so, provided that those of us who do not are not compelled to do so. When the referendums are held, I hope and believe that many people will take the opportunity to vote for a Europe of diversity and not uniformity, and a Europe that respects the rights of nation states.
Grabowska, (PSE).–(PL) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Taoiseach, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the consultation process, on 4 May this year the European Parliament expressed a critical opinion on the draft agreement between the United States and the European Union. The agreement requires that European air carriers disclose certain data pertaining to passengers travelling to the United States, such as bank account numbers, for example. The data is to be passed to the office responsible for customs and border protection in the Department of Homeland Security in the United States. Parliament stated that the agreement infringes European Union legislation. In particular, it felt the agreement eroded the level of protection of personal data guaranteed in Directive No 46 of 1995. Accordingly, Parliament approached the European Court of Justice and requested its opinion on the matter. Nonetheless, the Council finalised the agreement, disregarding the concerns expressed and taking advantage of the interruption of the business of the House due to the elections for a new Parliament.
This leads me to a question. Is it the Irish Presidency’s view that the level of protection of personal data afforded to European citizens should have been reduced as required by this agreement, despite the serious concerns expressed by Parliament? Does this not amount to a restriction of personal freedoms? I should like to know whether the Presidency has recognised the problem and whether it has endeavoured to take a stance on such an important issue.
In conclusion, and on a somewhat different note, I should like to congratulate the Irish Presidency most sincerely on concluding the negotiations on a Constitutional Treaty. The compromise achieved represents a success for the Presidency and a personal success for yourself, Taoiseach. It is actually a success for us all, because Europe and all of us need a constitution. The Irish Presidency succeeded in convincing the governments of the twenty-five Member States to support the Constitution. The task now is to convince the 450 million citizens of the European Union to support it as well. We must all work together to ensure that they do so. It will then be possible for the Constitution to come into force on 1 November 2009.
Tajani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, we cannot fail to see that the net balance of the Irish Presidency was positive. It worked effectively and brought the whole European Union two great political results: the agreement on the first Constitution and the selection of the new President of the Commission, who should be voted in by Parliament tomorrow.
The work on the Constitution was thoroughly positive. We have just one major regret: that an explicit reference to the European Union’s Christian roots, which form the true bridge linking western Europe with eastern Europe, was not inserted into the preamble. We regret this, and the Group of the European People’s Party will fight on so that Europe will never forget its own origins.
Even so, the Irish Presidency was successful and brought to a conclusion the task done so remarkably by the Italian Presidency, which had achieved agreement on 95% of the Convention’s work. It is no coincidence that this result has been acknowledged by all the countries of the European Union, which have decided to have the Treaty signed in the Italian capital – the City of Rome – which represents not only a benchmark in Italian history but also an important benchmark in the history of Europe and the history of the European Union.
The second important and positive result is the selection of the new candidate for the Presidency of the European Commission. This result not only respects the vote of 13 June but at the same time acknowledges the Portuguese Prime Minister’s balance – a President of the Commission who represents renewal and a new interpretation of how to run the Executive, increasingly detached from the petty affairs of individual countries and leaning increasingly towards creating a Europe that is allied to the United States but is also politically strong and a player on the international stage.
IN THE CHAIR: MR BORRELL FONTELLES President
Savary (PSE).–(FR) Mr President, I should like to join in the chorus of praise for the Irish Presidency, which has proved that when there is great European inspiration there are no small countries.
On a more specific point, and speaking as a member of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, I should also like to congratulate the Irish Presidency on three of its very important achievements. The first of these is the adoption of the second railways package, the second is the adoption of a very ambitious programme of trans-European transport networks, and the third is the constellation of navigation satellites forming Galileo, the European Global Positioning System. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the Irish negotiators, who showed great savoir-faire and very great skill.
When anyone exercises responsibility, however, there are always grey areas and there are failures. I should like to mention two of them, and to associate myself with all that has been said here about the agreement with the United States on personal data in relation to transatlantic air safety. This agreement is not in line with what Parliament wanted. It is a denial of democracy and we cannot accept it. This agreement represents a risk to human rights and is a manifestation of Europe’s servility towards the United States at a time when the United States is not demonstrating very much openness in relation to human rights and the protection of citizens. In some respects it is contrary to the elementary requirements and the ideals of our European project. Nevertheless I welcome the fact that it was an Irishman, Mr Pat Cox, who tried to expunge this affront to the European Parliament by initiating proceedings before the European Court of Justice.
The second great disappointment is the decision of the ‘competitiveness’ Council to go back on this House’s vote at first reading on the patentability of software. It is unfortunate that you chose to go back on a text which is a credit to the European Parliament, striking, as it in one sense did, a miraculous balance between protecting our industry and guaranteeing the universality of the language of software and the freedom of access to it.
I think that this is a great pity. The ball is, admittedly, in Parliament’s court, but the option chosen is the result of an extremely narrow conception of property and the weight of the industrial lobbies. In all, your Presidency will be remembered as being a great technical presidency but as being slightly less successful as regards social matters, and this is something that is regrettable.
Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE).–(ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I must start by contradicting the previous speaker. The Irish Presidency has been a great political Presidency, rather than a technical one; and it has been so in difficult conditions, and at the time of the massacre of 11 March in Madrid.
The first measures you have taken, such as the appointment of the anti-terrorist Coordinator, are steps in the right direction in terms of combating the scourge of terrorism, which affects our public freedoms.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have succeeded in reaching an agreement on the European Constitution. This Parliament is going to give its opinion on that text over the coming weeks and therefore – everybody knows my position on this issue – I do not wish to talk about it in advance, but I congratulate you because it was not easy to reach an agreement and, in the end, that agreement and the Constitution Europe needs are currently on the table. I would also like to congratulate you, Mr President, on the proposal to name Mr Durão Barroso as candidate for the Presidency of the Commission, because that agreement was not easy either. We have a great candidate and, above all, I believe we must make a political effort to put the Commission where it should be: at the centre of the Community method and of the life of the European Union. I hope that this important vote in favour of the candidate proposed to us by the European Council also moves in the direction of restoring relations between the Commission and the European Parliament, which are so important.
Taoiseach, I believe, however, that the most important issue during your Presidency has been enlargement. When, a few weeks ago, we celebrated the anniversary of Monnet and Spinelli, my group had the honour of representing you in this debate. I thought that if Monnet and Spinelli had been here, sitting on these benches, they would have thought that the enlargement achieved under the Irish Presidency, ‘the stitching together of the two Europes’, to use the expression of Mr Geremek, was the most important thing we have done over recent years, and that will always be to your credit.
Much has been said here about large countries and small countries; I believe it is a pernicious distinction, which has never existed in European history. Why is a country large or small? Because of its population, the size of its territory, its GDP? No, a country is large or small depending on whether its leaders, its peoples and its citizens have ambition and vision.
You, Taoiseach, and Ireland, have been large in Europe during this Presidency.
Protasiewicz (PPE-DE).–(PL) Mr President of Parliament, Mr President of the Commission, Taoiseach, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, we are today reviewing the six-month period of the Irish Presidency. It most certainly proved a very successful time for the European Union. In particular, the greatest enlargement in the history of the European Union took place during this period, as several previous speakers have stated. Enlargement was finally accomplished amidst much rejoicing and celebration in Dublin on 1 May. In June, the enlarged Europe demonstrated it could function effectively when 25 European leaders agreed on the choice of candidate for President of the European Commission. That was an achievement equally worthy of celebration and I congratulate the Irish Presidency most sincerely on this further success.
I would also like to express my appreciation of the Presidency’s response following the tragic attacks in Madrid on 11 March. I am confident that both the resources earmarked for prevention of further terrorist attacks on our continent and those already deployed will produce the desired result. This will represent a significant and distinctive Irish contribution to the creation of a safer Europe.
By way of contrast with the aforementioned undisputed successes of the Irish Presidency, concerns have been expressed regarding the compromise over the draft Constitutional Treaty. Clearly, a compromise would never have been achieved without the determination and drive the Irish leaders demonstrated at the Brussels Summit. Nonetheless, the question does arise as to whether that June compromise and the drive demonstrated at the time will not prove counter-productive in the future, when the draft Constitution for Europe comes to be ratified, especially through referenda.
My misgivings arise from impressions gained during a number of meetings in the course of the recent European Parliament election campaign. To a great many Europeans, the lack of any reference to Judaeo-Christian traditions in the preamble to the Constitution will present a major obstacle when they are called on to vote for its ratification. A great many Europeans are not opposed to a united Europe, nor are they opposed to further integration within the European Union. They do, however, feel that this ambitious project is being built on shaky foundations by omitting the fundamental and obvious fact of the importance of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in shaping the Europe of today and of the future.
Ahern, Bertie,Council. Mr President, I will be brief, but I wish to thank Members for their constructive and positive comments. There were some comments on the shortcomings of our presidency, and I shall take these in the spirit in which they were made. I want to thank Mr Poettering, Mr Hänsch, Mr Duff and many others who welcomed the agreement on the European Constitution.
The agreement on the Constitution was historic: agreement would not have been possible without all the participants working together to achieve it. The important thing is that the Union has shown that win-win solutions are possible if we work towards compromises, as many people have stated. It is impossible for people to set down what they alone want. Via compromise, this unique system can create positive outcomes that benefit everybody.
All of you who have just been engaged in the election campaigns and earned the privilege of being in this Parliament know how important the European Union is for the prosperity and well-being of Europeans. At the same time, you, more than most, know the difficulty of making European Union agenda heard above the clamour of what some people often mistakenly consider to be more pressing bread-and-butter issues. I say 'mistakenly' because the European Union is about vision and a vast array of practical issues of great importance. Many Members, from different countries and different perspectives, have mentioned those issues today.
We must explain to people what is in the Constitution. It will be important to provide a space for informed debate in countries that will and will not be holding a referendum. The period between now and the entry into force of the Treaty will give us the opportunity to describe and explain what the Union does and does not do. We can articulate the values and objectives that underpin the Union.
Although we should not underestimate our task, we should not underestimate the text of the European Constitution itself. A clause that states that the Union's values are respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights is one that can be clearly understood by all our people and should be sold to them on the basis of those values. When the Constitution states that the Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples, this too will resonate with everybody. At the same time, however, there will be genuine concerns and many opposing views will be raised. These concerns must be heard and the issues must be addressed in a measured and reasonable way. A fear without foundation is still a fear, and all fears must be addressed, as I have discovered over the last six months.
Those of us who support the European Union and the Constitution whose values it embodies must remain passionate advocates of it. At the same time it is important that those who support and those who oppose the new European Constitution approach the debate with moderation, reason and accuracy.
I just wish to touch on a few of the issues Mr Poettering raised. He and some others mentioned the issue of Christianity. The preamble of the text acknowledges Europe's religious inheritance. We would have preferred to see an explicit reference to its Christian heritage, but it was not simple to achieve a consensus on a suitable wording. However, an important new article recognises the special contribution of Churches and, for the first time, provides for open and regular discussion with them. This has been widely welcomed by Church and faith organisations. So although there is no explicit reference in the preamble - which I personally would have liked - it was important to include that new clause.
A number of Members mentioned the nomination process, which I know is very important to Mrs Frassoni. Back in the Convention, the Irish Government proposed a radical way of nominating future presidents of the Commission. Our vision was to involve this Parliament and the parliaments of all the Member States in the process of electing the new Commission President. I would ask the new Members of Parliament to look at our proposal. We received no support when we advocated it, so I hate to hear the people who did not support us now criticising us, but that's politics! Members should consider the proposal for the next time around: it may be complicated, but it is a good idea.
Remarkable work was done in the Convention on the European social dimension. Mr Katiforis led the working group on Social Europe. It is an area of particular concern to me personally and to the Irish presidency because we value the social solidarity that is the central feature of the European project in Ireland. We are a country that fully involves employers and trade unions - a 'voluntary pillar' - in all legislative decisions. We have been doing that for 17 years. I have to remind my good friend and colleague Mrs Doyle of that - the point has obviously passed her by over the 17 years. We value the concept, and President Prodi is quite right: we have adopted a positive, progressive aspect of the Constitutional Treaty. This is the European people's Constitution. We must remind our citizens of that fact. I agree with Mrs Doyle's point on small business: we have to continue to try to do that for small business.
Mr Czarnecki spoke of the issue of freedom of movement. From day one we in Ireland have opened our doors to all parts of Europe and we did not distinguish between people from old and new Member States. We are proud that we have done that.
Mr Goebbels and a number of other Members underlined the importance of the Lisbon Agenda and regretted that more of the goals involved were not achieved. I am the first to acknowledge that the Lisbon Agenda is work in progress. We have to intensify efforts and improve our delivery if we are to reach the goals we have set ourselves for 2010. That is why we set up such a thorough process in the mid-term review. We have set out what we would like to do in the future, but we have also said what we have done.
As regards practical delivery over the last six months, and to give one concrete example as to what I was asked to do, people should just look at the details set out in a chapter of a report we drafted dealing with working together for growth and employment. I have been asked to look at the financial services area, which was most effectively steered forward under the leadership of Minister McCreevy. By securing an agreement on the financial services instruments, the market directives and the transparency directive, Minister McCreevy and his team - with excellent cooperation from Parliament - completed this services action plan. This is a critical area for the future growth of the European economy and one I can cite as a practical example of what is being delivered on the Lisbon Agenda. Indeed, I have underlined the importance I attach to the Lisbon Agenda in nominating Minister McCreevy as Commissioner. I am sure his experience will help there in the future, because the Lisbon agenda is all about delivering growth and jobs for Europe, and the Minister knows about delivering those two things. I would invite you to look at Ireland's record on these issues, which is would be of some value.
Mr De Rossa is correct that we should discuss domestic issues at home, and I will be very glad to do that with him at any time. Our finance minister has liberated Irish workers from the punitive tax rates established when the administration with which Mr De Rossa was associated was in power. I always find it interesting when a Socialist mentions a 'right-wing person': definitions are always interesting. Mr De Rossa says he is left-wing and Socialist and he gave under two euros to old people. Mr McCreevy is right-wing and he gives 10 euros every year to old people. Work out the definitions for yourselves: they are quite interesting. I have only been in politics for 27 years: I need to be around a while longer before I understand the definitions of right and left, which I believe are rather nonsensical in any case.
It is a true honour to be here reporting to the House. I believe that 2004 will be seen as a highly significant year for the European Union. We enlarged to 25 Member States. We have agreed a Constitution. We have renewed our commitment to achieving the Lisbon Agenda goals. We have reinforced our relationship with our global partners. While the work of the Irish presidency is done, the work of the Union obviously continues. I wish Mr Balkenende and the Dutch presidency every success. I also wish President Prodi every success for the remainder of his term of office and hopefully the same will apply - with the House's support - to Mr Durão Barroso in the future. I wish you well too, Mr President. On this first working day, I wish everybody here happiness and success in their political work in the European Parliament.
Go raibh míle míle maith agaibh.
(Applause)
Prodi, Romano,President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, has already answered all the questions. I will have to speak in a few minutes to comment on the beginning of the Dutch Presidency, and so I shall really confine myself to thanking the Irish Prime Minister and all the Members of Parliament.
I should just like to take up a thought, a suggestion made by Mr Goebbels, who invited us to examine the Stability Pact and its reforms. I can tell you that the Commission, encouraged by the Court’s decision, has already started work and on 3 September we shall be presenting the results of our considerations, so that a thorough debate on the subject can begin. For the rest, the debate has been very one-sided with few voices raised against the Constitution, and the feeling that Europe is becoming a civil power, as Mrs Sbarbati put it, is widely shared in this Parliament.
Thank you all for your attention. Finally, I must just say to Mr Poettering that it may be true that being in the middle of the photograph is important, but it may equally be true that having one on one side and one on the other, embracing the States of the Union, may have an even stronger political meaning.
(Applause)
President. The joint debate is closed.
(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)
WRITTEN STATEMENTS (RULE 142)
Hudghton (Verts/ALE) (in writing). – As a member of Scotland's Party of Independence, the SNP, I congratulate the Irish Government for the exemplary manner in which it conducted its six-month presidency.
Ireland, a member state smaller than Scotland, has provided inspiration to those of us who aspire to see Scotland resuming all of the normal powers of an independent nation, speaking for ourselves in the International Community, and cooperating with our neighbours on terms which suit Scotland's priorities - not London's.
Ireland, with healthy economic growth, continues to demonstrate how to gain maximum benefit from EU membership, while Scotland lags behind in terms of job opportunities and is suffering a decline in population.
I look forward to the day when Scots ministers will sit alongside Irish in the Council of Ministers, as equal partners with full rights to negotiate and vote, putting Scotland's interests first and not, as at present, merely acting as bag-carriers for their Westminster bosses.
Pafilis (GUE/NGL),in writing. – (EL) The decisions, assessments and conclusions of the EU summit on 17 and 18 June run counter to the interests of the workers of the nations of Europe who, in voting or abstaining from the European elections on 13 June, expressed their condemnation of the ΕU and its policy.
The European Constitution approved by the summit incorporates the previous Treaties which safeguard the freedom of big business and the reversal of the achievements and rights of the working classes and grass roots. It is supreme institutional protection of the dictatorship of the European monopolies.
The US military doctrine of 'preventive war' against a country or countries on the pretext of combating terrorism has been adopted, thereby overturning the basic principles of international law set out in the UN charter. The ΕU, which supports and works with ΝΑΤΟ, is being militarised.
Decisions have been taken on greater cooperation between the ΕU and the USA in order to intervene and crush nations, on disgraceful cooperation with the occupying government in Iraq, on a European army mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina, the scope of action of which is to be extended as far as Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and on the application of the American/NATO plan on the Middle East.
New measures have been promoted to suppress grass-roots rights and freedoms by hitting out at working-class and grass-roots struggles and imposing terrorism on peoples.
The working classes of Europe and the peoples must strengthen resistance, insubordination and disobedience in the EU in their fight to prevent the European constitution and bring about the downfall of the ΕU.
Approval by the Council of Parliament’s positions adopted at first reading (Rule 66 of the Rules of Procedure) – Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council – Membership of political groups – Order of business: see Minutes.
European Council/Irish presidency
