Doslovný záznam ze zasedání

Čtvrtek, 23. června 2005 - Brusel

4. Program činnosti britského předsednictví

  El Presidente. De conformidad con el orden del día vamos a proceder a la declaración del Consejo sobre el programa de actividad de la Presidencia británica, para lo cual voy a dar la palabra a su Primer Ministro, señor Tony Blair, a quien doy la bienvenida. Quiero recordarles que antes de hoy la Conferencia de Presidentes de los Grupos políticos de este Parlamento ya ha tenido ocasión de reunirse con la Presidencia británica en Londres; allí tuvimos ocasión de intercambiar con el señor Primer Ministro una serie de puntos de vista sobre la forma en la que el Reino Unido va a desarrollar su Presidencia rotatoria de la Unión. Pero ahora corresponde informar de la misma al Pleno del Parlamento.

  Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Mr President, colleagues, distinguished guests, it is an honour to be here in the European Parliament today. With your permission, I will come back after each European Council during the UK presidency and report to you. In addition, I will be happy to consult Parliament before each Council so as to have the benefit of the views of the European Parliament before any Council deliberations.

This is a timely address. Whatever else people disagree upon in Europe today, they at least agree on one point: Europe is in the midst of a profound debate about its future. I want to talk to you plainly today about this debate, the reasons for it and how to resolve it. In every crisis there is an opportunity. There is one for Europe now, if we have the courage to take it.

The debate over Europe should not be conducted by trading insults or in terms of personality. It should be an open and frank exchange of ideas. At the outset, I want to describe clearly how I define the debate and the disagreement underlying it. The issue is not between a ‘free market’ Europe and a social Europe, between those who want to retreat to a common market and those who believe in Europe as a political project. This is not just a misrepresentation. It is designed to intimidate those who want to change Europe by representing the desire for change as a betrayal of the European ideal, to try to shut off serious debate about Europe’s future by claiming that the very insistence on debate is to embrace the anti-Europe. It is a mindset I have fought against all my political life. Ideals survive through change. They die through inertia in the face of challenge.

(Applause)

I am a passionate pro-European. I always have been.

(Mixed reactions)

I was wondering whether this was going to be a lively forum, and I am delighted to see that it is.

(Laughter)

It is called democracy and long may it be so.

(Applause)

The first time I voted was in 1975, in the British referendum on membership, and I voted ‘yes’. Shortly before the British election in 1983, when I was the last candidate in the United Kingdom to be selected, and when my party had a policy of withdrawing from Europe, I told the selection conference that I disagreed with the policy. Some thought I had lost the selection, some perhaps wish I had.

(Laughter)

But I then helped to change that policy in the 1980s and I am proud of that change. Since becoming Prime Minister, I have signed the European Social Chapter; helped, along with France, to create the modern European defence policy; have played my part in the Amsterdam, Nice and Rome Treaties.

This is a Union of values, of solidarity between nations and people ...

(Applause)

… of not just a common market in which we trade, but a common political space in which we live as citizens. It always will be. I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply an economic market.

(Applause)

To say that this is the issue is to escape the real debate and to hide in the comfort zone of the things we have always said to each other in times of difficulty. There is not some division between the Europe necessary to succeed economically and social Europe. Political Europe and economic Europe do not live in separate rooms. The purpose of social Europe and economic Europe should be to sustain each other. The purpose of political Europe should be to promote the democratic and effective institutions to develop policy in these two spheres and across the board where we want and need to cooperate in our mutual interest. But the purpose of political leadership is to get the policies right for today’s world.

For 50 years European leaders have done that. We talk of crisis; let us first talk of achievement. When the war ended, Europe was in ruins. Today the European Union stands as a monument to political achievement: almost 50 years of peace, 50 years of prosperity, 50 years of progress. Think of it, let us all be grateful for it and be proud of what has happened in Europe in these past 50 years.

(Applause)

The broad sweep of history is on the side of the European Union. Countries round the world are coming together today because in collective cooperation they increase individual strength. Until the second half of the 20th century, individual European nations had, for centuries, dominated the world, colonised large parts of it, and fought wars against each other for world supremacy. Then, out of the carnage of the Second World War, political leaders had the vision to realise that those days were gone. Today’s world does not diminish that vision: it demonstrates its prescience.

The United States is the world’s only superpower. But within a few decades China and India will be the world’s largest economies, each of them with populations three times that of the whole of the European Union. The idea of Europe, united and working together, is essential today for our nations to be strong enough to keep our place in this world.

But now, almost 50 years on, we have to renew. There is no shame in that. All institutions must do it, and we can, as well, but only if we remarry the European ideals we believe in to the modern world in which we live. If we do not, if Europe defaulted to euroscepticism, or if European nations, faced with the immense challenge we have in front of us, decided to huddle together, hoping we can avoid globalisation, shrink away from confronting the changes around us, take refuge in the present policies of Europe as if by constantly repeating them, we would by the very act of repetition make them more relevant, then we risk failure. Failure on a grand, strategic scale. This is not a time to accuse those who want Europe to change of betraying Europe. It is a time to recognise that only by change will Europe recover its strength, its relevance, its idealism and therefore its support amongst the people.

(Applause)

As ever, the people are ahead of the politicians. We always think as a political class that the people, unconcerned with the daily obsession of politics, may not understand it, may not see its subtleties and its complexities. Ultimately, people always see politics more clearly than we do, precisely because they are not obsessed with it on a daily basis.

The issue, therefore, is not about the idea of the European Union. It is about modernisation and policy. It is not a debate about how to abandon Europe, but how to make it do what it was set up to do: improve the lives of people. And right now, they are not convinced.

Consider this. For four years Europe conducted a debate over our new Constitution, two years of it in the Convention. It was a detailed, careful piece of work setting out the new rules to govern a Europe of 25, and then in time 27, 28 and more Member States. The Constitution was endorsed by all governments. It was supported by all leaders. It was then comprehensively rejected in referendums in two founding Member States, in the case of the Netherlands by over 60 per cent. The reality is that, as we speak today at least, to secure a ‘yes’ vote in a referendum in most Member States would be difficult.

There are two possible explanations. One is that people studied the Constitution and disagreed with its precise articles. I doubt that was the basis of the majority ‘no’. This was not an issue of drafting or specific textual disagreement. The other explanation is that the Constitution became merely the vehicle for the people to register a wider and deeper discontent with the state of affairs in Europe. I believe this to be the correct analysis. If so, it is not a crisis of political institutions. It is a crisis of political leadership.

(Applause)

People in Europe are posing hard questions to us. They worry about globalisation, about job security, about pensions, about living standards. They see not just their economy, but also their society changing around them. Traditional communities are broken up. Ethnic patterns change. Family life is under strain as families struggle to balance work and home. We are living through a profound era of upheaval and change. Look at our children and the technology they use and the jobs market they face. The world is unrecognisable from that which we experienced as students twenty or thirty years ago. When such change occurs, moderate people must give leadership. If they do not, the extremes gain traction on the political process. It happens within a nation. It is happening in Europe now.

Just reflect. The Laeken Declaration which launched the Constitution was designed, and I quote, ‘to bring Europe closer to the people’. Did it? The Lisbon Agenda was launched in 2000 with the ambition of making Europe, and I quote, ‘the most competitive place to do business in the world by 2010’. We are half way through that period. Has it succeeded? I have sat through Council Conclusions after Council Conclusions describing how we are reconnecting Europe to the people, but are we?

It is time to give ourselves a reality check and to receive the wake-up call. The people are blowing the trumpets around the city walls. Are we listening? Have we the political will to go out and meet them so that they regard our leadership collectively as part of the solution, and not part of the problem?

(Applause)

That is the context in which the budget debate should be set. People say we need the budget to restore Europe’s credibility. Of course we do, but it should be the right budget. It should not be abstracted from the debate about Europe’s crisis, it should be part of the answer to it.

I want to say a word about last Friday’s summit. There have been suggestions that I was not willing to compromise on the UK rebate; that I only raised common agricultural policy reform at the last minute; that I expected to renegotiate the CAP last Friday night. In fact I am the only British leader that has ever said I would put the rebate on the table. I have never said we should end the CAP now or renegotiate it overnight. Such a position would be absurd. Any change must take account of the legitimate needs of farming communities and must happen over time. I have said simply two things: that we cannot agree a new financial perspective that does not at least set out a process that leads to a more rational budget …

(Applause)

… and that this must allow such a budget to shape the second half of the perspective up to 2013. Otherwise it will be 2014 before any fundamental change is agreed, let alone implemented. In the meantime, of course Britain will pay its full share of enlargement. I might point out that on any basis we would remain the second highest net contributor to the European Union and have in this financial perspective paid billions more than similar-sized countries. That is actually the context for this debate on the budget.

So what would a different policy agenda for Europe look like? First, it would modernise our social model. Again, some have suggested that I want to abandon Europe’s social model. But tell me, what type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed across Europe; …

(Applause)

… that has productivity rates falling behind those of the United States; that is allowing more science graduates to be produced by India than by Europe; and that on any relative index of a modern economy – skills, research and development, patents, information technology – is going down and not up? India will expand its biotechnology sector fivefold in the next five years. China has trebled its spending on research and development in the last five years. Of the top 20 universities in the world today, only two are now in Europe.

The purpose of our social model should be to enhance our ability to compete, to help our people cope with globalisation, to let them embrace its opportunities and to avoid the dangers. Of course we need a social Europe, but it has to be a social Europe that works. And we have been told how to do it. The Kok report of 2004 shows the way: investment in knowledge; in skills; in active labour market policies; in science parks and innovation; in higher education; in urban regeneration; and in help for small businesses. This is modern social policy, not regulation and job protection that may save some jobs for a time at the expense of many jobs in the future.

(Applause)

And since this is a day for demolishing caricatures, let me demolish one other: the idea that Britain is in the grip of some extreme Anglo-Saxon market philosophy that tramples on the poor and disadvantaged. The present British Government has introduced the New Deal for the unemployed, the largest jobs programme in Europe that has seen long-term youth unemployment virtually abolished in my country. It has increased investment in our public services more than any other European country in the past five years. We needed to do this, it is true, but we did it. We have introduced Britain’s first minimum wage. We have regenerated our cities, we have lifted almost one million children out of poverty, two million pensioners out of acute hardship and are now embarked on the most radical expansion of childcare, maternity and paternity rights in our country’s history. We have done all this on the basis of, and not at the expense of, a strong economy. So that is the first thing, to modernise our social model.

Second, let the budget reflect these realities. The Sapir report shows the way. Published by the European Commission in 2003, it sets out in clear detail what a modern European budget would look like. Let us put it into practice. But a modern budget for Europe is not one that ten years from now is still spending 40 per cent of its money on the common agricultural policy.

(Applause)

Third, implement the Lisbon Agenda. On jobs, labour market participation, school leavers, and life-long learning we set targets at Lisbon, but frankly, at present we are nowhere near meeting those targets by 2010. The Lisbon Agenda told us what to do, let us do it.

Fourth, and here I tread carefully, get a macroeconomic framework for Europe that is disciplined but also flexible. It is not for me to comment on the eurozone, but I just say this: if we agreed real progress on economic reform, if we demonstrated real seriousness on structural change, then people would perceive reform of macro policy as sensible and rational, not a product of fiscal laxity but of common sense. We need such reform urgently in Europe if Europe is to grow.

(Applause)

After the economic and social challenges, then let us confront another set of linked issues: crime, security and immigration. Crime is now crossing borders now more easily than ever before. We estimate that in the UK alone organised crime is costing us GBP 20 billion a year. Migration has doubled in the past 20 years. Much of it is healthy and welcome, but it must be managed. Illegal immigration is an issue for all our nations and a human tragedy for many thousands of people. It is estimated that 70 per cent of illegal immigrants have their passage facilitated by organised criminal groups. Then there is the repugnant practice of human trafficking, whereby organised gangs move people from one region to another with the intention of exploiting them when they arrive. Between 600 000 and 800 000 people are trafficked globally each year and every year over 100 000 women are victims of people trafficking in the European Union.

Again a relevant Justice and Home Affairs agenda would focus on these issues: implementing the European Union action plan on counter-terrorism, which has huge potential to improve law enforcement as well as addressing the radicalisation and recruitment of terrorists; cross-border intelligence and policing on organised crime; developing proposals to hit the people and drug traffickers hard in opening up their bank accounts, harassing their activities, arresting their leading members and bringing them to justice; getting returns agreements for failed asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants from neighbouring countries and others; developing biometric technology to make Europe’s borders secure. All of these are issues we can concentrate upon.

Then there is the whole area of common foreign and security policy. We should be agreeing practical measures to enhance European defence capability, to be prepared to take on more peacekeeping and enforcement missions. We should develop the capability, with NATO, or where NATO does not want to be engaged then outside it, to be able to intervene quickly and effectively in support of conflict resolution. Look at the numbers today in our European armies and the expenditure we make on defence. Do they really answer the strategic needs of today?

Such a defence policy is a necessary part of an effective foreign policy. But even without it, we should be seeing how we can make the influence of the European Union count. When the European Union agreed recently to a doubling of aid, and in particular a doubling of aid to Africa, it was an immediate boost not just for that troubled continent, but for European cooperation. We are world leaders in development today, we should be proud of it.

(Applause)

We should be leading the way on promoting a new multilateral trade agreement which will increase trade for all, especially the poorest nations.

(Applause)

We are leading the debate on climate change and developing pan-European policies to tackle it. Thanks to Javier Solana, Europe has started to make its presence felt in the Middle East peace process. My point is very simple: a strong Europe would be an active player in foreign policy, a good partner of course to the United States, but also capable of demonstrating our own capacity to shape and move the world forward.

(Applause)

Such a Europe – its economy in the process of being modernised and its security enhanced by clear action within our borders and beyond – would be a confident Europe. It would be a Europe confident enough to see enlargement not as a threat, as if membership were a zero sum game in which old members lose as new members gain, but an extraordinary, historic opportunity to build a greater and more powerful Union. Be under no illusion. If we stop enlargement or shut out its natural consequences it would not, in the end, save one job, keep one firm in business, prevent one delocalisation. For a time it might, but not for long. In the meantime, Europe would become more narrow, more introspective and those who garner support would be those not in the traditions of European idealism but in the traditions of outdated nationalism and xenophobia.

I tell you in all frankness, it is a contradiction to be in favour of liberalising Europe’s membership but against opening up its economy. If we set out that clear direction, if we then combine it with a Commission – as this one under José Manuel Barroso’s leadership is fully capable of doing – that is prepared to send back some of the unnecessary regulation, peel back some of the bureaucracy and become a champion of a global, outward-looking competitive Europe, then it will not be hard to capture the imagination and support of the people of Europe.

In our presidency, we will try to take forward the budget deal; to resolve some of the hard dossiers like the Services Directive and Working Time Directive; to carry out the Union’s obligations to those like Turkey and Croatia that wait in hope of a future as part of Europe; and to conduct this debate about the future of Europe in an open, inclusive way, giving our own views strongly but fully respectful of the views of others.

There is only one thing I ask: do not let us kid ourselves that this debate is unnecessary; that if only we can assume business as usual, people will sooner or later relent and acquiesce in Europe as it is, not as they want it to be.

In my time as Prime Minister, I have found that the hard part is not taking the decision, it is spotting when it has to be taken. It is understanding the difference between the challenges that have to be managed and those that have to be confronted and overcome. This is such a moment of decision for Europe.

The people of Europe are speaking to us. They are posing the questions. They are wanting our leadership and it time we gave it to them.

(Loud and sustained applause)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. Mr President, President of the Council, honourable Members of the European Parliament, we have entered a turbulent period in European politics and last week’s difficult European Council simply reflects that fact. If nothing else, last week’s meeting of European leaders established a need for the new political consensus that I called for in this very Chamber some time ago; a consensus that is vital if we are to avoid all ideological confrontations and paralysis; a consensus that is vital if we are to deliver on our programme of prosperity, solidarity and security. The way to reconnect Europe to its citizens is by delivering solutions to the concrete challenges they face.

Prime Minister Blair, your presidency is taking place at a decisive moment for Europe. Saying this has become a cliché, but this time it happens to be true. This has important implications for the responsibility you are about to take on. It also raises high expectations. The United Kingdom’s record of pragmatism and results-oriented action will be put to the test in the coming six months. Prime Minister Blair, you are a statesman of enormous experience and conviction and you have confirmed today your commitment to Europe as a political project. I therefore have every confidence that you will lead an inclusive, constructive debate on what Europe can do for its citizens and create the consensus required for the urgent decisions that Europe needs.

I am greatly encouraged that achieving this new consensus and playing an active role during the period of reflection called for by the European Council are priorities for the incoming UK presidency. As I outlined here yesterday, the Commission will also fully live up to the special role it has been given for this debate on the future of Europe. You will recall the meetings I proposed with all Member States – including parliaments, social partners, civil society and young people – to listen and share ideas. A strategy paper will draw on the results of this debate and tackle fundamental questions about the future of Europe. This will feed into next June’s European Council under the Austrian presidency, where we will reassess the situation. I am sure the European Parliament will play a vital role in all this.

As 50 years of history have taught us, the day-to-day business of the European Union continues, even during one of its periodic crises – and so it should. It is crucial that we address the core issues that help to define the Europe our citizens want. But we must not get lost in a period of narrow introspection. It is by actions, not words, that we will win back public trust and confidence.

There is certainly plenty of business to be getting on with, as Prime Minister Blair has just made clear. The goals and priorities he has outlined for the UK presidency over the next six months closely match those of the European Commission and he can count on our support and advice in working towards them.

I wish to take this opportunity to highlight one or two of them in particular. Economic renewal and reform remain the cornerstone of this Commission. The next six months will see the launch of concrete steps to turn the revitalised Lisbon Agenda into reality. The mid-term review of the Lisbon Agenda is behind us. Now is the time for action at both European and national level. Member States will present their national reform programmes this October. These will set out in detail the principal measures they are taking to support our programme for growth and jobs. The Commission, for its part, will present a Community reform programme over the summer. This will set out the different priority actions, both legislative and financial, that need to be adopted or decided upon at European level in support of the Lisbon Agenda. Naturally, our ambitions on Lisbon will be tempered to a greater or lesser extent by the final outcome on the negotiations on the financial perspectives. It is regrettable that the heaviest cuts to the current negotiating box fall on precisely that heading which most supports Lisbon-related policies. That would not have happened if the ‘one per cent club’ of countries did not fight to reduce Europe’s ambitions.

(Applause)

But there is now a real urgency to reach an agreement to avoid paralysis in the Union beyond 2006, a paralysis which will have a negative effect on our policies and on Member States, particularly the new ones. The new members of the European Union expect concrete signals of our solidarity and not just words. That is why we must make further efforts on the existing proposals and the work of the Luxembourg presidency. This does not mean that we should abandon the search for a better-balanced budget, reflecting a good compromise between existing spending on our tried and tested policies, in particular cohesion and our new policy agenda for growth and jobs. That is why I called for a review clause even before the European Council. We need a review clause because we cannot know exactly what the world will be like in 2013. But we cannot wait for 2013. Given the urgency, it is not reasonable to put everything into question now. What is reasonable is to approve the financial perspectives now, working on the basis of the Luxembourg presidency, and accept a review clause during the period of those financial perspectives …

(Applause)

… so that we can adapt the priorities, the structure of expenditure and the structure of resources to the changing circumstances.

Responsibility now lies with the UK presidency to ensure that this is brought to a rapid conclusion, and the Commission is ready to work with it and other Member States to do this.

One core area of the Lisbon Agenda is better regulation. It is not by chance that the first major Commission initiative to implement the revised Lisbon Strategy was the March communication on better regulation for growth and jobs. In that context, we have called for closer collaboration between the European Union and Member States. The UK presidency’s contribution will be essential to the success of this process.

We also need this Parliament and the Council of Ministers to make renewed efforts to ensure the quality and workability of the rules you adopt. A first target must be agreement next month on a common approach to impact assessment across all three institutions. In our bid to cut down on red tape and unnecessary administrative burdens, we are now reviewing proposals that were tabled by preceding Commissions but which have not yet been adopted by the legislators. Our objective is to ensure that pending proposals are in line with our Lisbon priorities. Some 200 pending proposals are under examination. In early autumn we will conclude whether these should remain on the table, be amended or simply thrown out. Finally, in October the Commission will present the next phase of its simplification programme setting out a work programme for 2006-2007.

Another priority I would like to pick out from the many priorities jostling for attention is Africa. I have always said that Africa should be a flagship issue of the Commission. We got off to a good start with our April package of proposals aimed at accelerating European Union progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and giving priority to sub-Saharan Africa. I regret that the European Council’s agreement to our proposals went unnoticed in all the drama of last week. This agreement provides the UK presidency with a solid basis for defending the European Union’s position in the important events which mark 2005 as the year of development, particularly the United Nations Summit in September.

I wish to congratulate the UK on making Africa a priority for its European Union and G8 presidencies, as this will give a welcome extra boost to ongoing activities at European Union level. This autumn, for example, the Commission will present a European Union strategy for Africa which will put flesh on the bones of its focus on Africa. This focus aims to accelerate European Union action in three key areas: governance, interconnection and equity. In order to give a decisive incentive for the reform of Africa’s governance, the Commission proposes to support the implementation of reforms triggered by the Africa peer review mechanism. The Commission also proposes a replenishment of the peace facility so as to provide the African Union with the necessary financial muscle to cope with Africa’s conflicts. We are already supporting the African Union mission in Darfur, for example.

I am pleased that the UK presidency will maintain the momentum also on climate change. This is a top issue for the European Union. Not only must we live up to our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, we must also start intensifying discussions on the international climate policy regime post-2012 and we must engage our main partners in that direction. A post-2012 framework must build on five elements: the participation of all major emitting nations; the use of market-based instruments; the inclusion of more sectors, such as international aviation and shipping; the development and use of new technologies and support to enable the poorest and worst-affected countries to adapt effectively to climate change. December’s United Nations conference on climate change in Montreal will be an important staging-post in this debate.

Also in December – and this is the last priority I should like to touch upon – is the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong. It is crucial that we spare no effort in making this a success. Only then can we hope to bring the Doha Development Agenda to a speedy and successful conclusion, which is the key to greater prosperity, not only for our citizens but also for those in developing countries.

The UK presidency will see the launch of a period of reflection called for by the European Council. We must look within ourselves for a new consensus and strive to regain the confidence of our citizens, but we must also look outwards towards our global responsibilities and opportunities. We must be a generous Europe, a Europe of solidarity, a Europe of values as well as markets. My Europe – the Europe I want to be part of – is big enough to do both these things. The Europe we want is a Europe where we have both economic and political integration. We believe in Europe as a political project. I hope the UK presidency will make an important contribution to a political Europe and a dynamic Europe.

(Applause)

  Hans-Gert Poettering, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Premierminister und zukünftiger Präsident des Europäischen Rates, Herr Kommissionspräsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben gestern eine bedeutende Rede des scheidenden Präsidenten des Europäischen Rates, Jean-Claude Juncker, gehört! Wir haben auch heute eine bedeutende Rede gehört, nämlich jene des derzeitigen Premierministers von Großbritannien und zukünftigen Präsidenten des Europäischen Rates. Ich möchte ausdrücklich auch dem Kommissionspräsidenten für seine Rede gestern und heute danken!

Ich gehöre seit 1979 diesem Parlament an, und ich muss Ihnen sagen, es hat in diesen Jahren niemals eine so intensive Diskussion über das zukünftige Modell der Europäischen Union gegeben, wie dies gestern und heute der Fall war. Das ist ein Sieg für die Demokratie, das ist ein Sieg für den Parlamentarismus, das ist ein Sieg für die Menschen in Europa, weil durch die Öffentlichkeit jetzt auch die Menschen in Europa an unserer Debatte teilnehmen können. Deswegen müssen diese beiden Tage gestern und heute ein Ausgangspunkt dafür sein, die Öffentlichkeit in Europa, in der Europäischen Union zu informieren, und die Debatten müssen hier geführt werden. Deswegen haben die Debatten gestern und heute schon eine große Bedeutung gehabt!

(Beifall)

Es muss auch so sein, dass die jeweiligen Präsidenten des Europäischen Rates sich hier vor dem Europäischen Parlament rechtfertigen, wenn sie, wie am vergangenen Wochenende, gescheitert sind. Das Scheitern in der Finanzfrage war ja an sich nicht so tragisch, aber weil es zu den gescheiterten Referenden hinzukam, ist die Krise damit verschärft worden. Wir bestehen darauf, dass die großen Zukunftsdebatten nicht hinter verschlossenen Türen im Europäischen Rat geführt werden, sondern hier im Zentrum der Vertreter der Völker der Europäischen Union, hier im Europäischen Parlament. So muss es in Zukunft sein!

(Beifall)

Herr zukünftiger Präsident des Europäischen Rates, Sie stehen vor einer gewaltigen und schwierigen Aufgabe! Sie haben von Respekt gesprochen. Ja, Respekt ist in Europa notwendig, vor den Großen und vor den Kleinen, und nicht nur vor den Großen. Wir wollen keine neuen Achsen zwischen den großen Staaten in Europa, wir wollen, dass jedes Land, alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger ernst genommen werden, weil dieses unser gemeinsames Europa ist. Und wir wollen ein starkes Europa, eine starke Europäische Union, ein gemeinschaftliches Europa. Das ist unser Ziel, von dem wir niemals abgehen werden!

(Beifall)

Deswegen begrüßen wir es, dass Sie an den Anfang Ihrer Ausführungen gestellt haben, dass Ihr Modell nicht die Rückführung auf eine Freihandelszone ist. Wenn Sie Ihren Worten Taten folgen lassen, wenn in Ihrer praktischen Arbeit deutlich wird, dass Sie das gemeinschaftliche Europa wollen, dann sind wir an Ihrer Seite. Was die Reform der europäischen Politiken betrifft, so sind Sie glaubwürdiger, wenn Sie keinen Zweifel an Ihrer europäischen Berufung lassen, und ich bitte Sie, dies in Ihrer Präsidentschaft deutlich zu machen!

(Beifall)

Jetzt müssen wir die Vertrauenskrise, in der wir uns befinden, lösen. Wir müssen das Vertrauen zwischen den Akteuren im Europäischen Rat und das Vertrauen der Bürger zurückgewinnen. Deswegen müssen wir das, was in der Verfassung steht, unsere gemeinsamen Werte und die Entscheidungsprozesse, die wir brauchen, um die Zukunftsfragen zu lösen, in die rechtliche und politische Realität überführen. Ich bitte, dass wir gemeinsam diese Denkpause nicht als Pause an sich verstehen, sondern als Pause zum Nachdenken darüber, wie wir es schaffen, diese Europäische Union auch auf rechtlicher und damit politischer Grundlage für die Zukunft handlungsfähig zu machen.

Nun haben Sie eine gewaltige Aufgabe vor sich, und Jean-Claude Juncker hat ja gestern auch davon gesprochen: die Finanzielle Vorausschau. Das war ein ziemliches Geschacher im Europäischen Rat. Das Europäische Parlament hat mit Reimer Böge einen Vorschlag zur Finanziellen Vorausschau gemacht: Orientieren Sie sich daran, dann haben Sie eine Kompromissmöglichkeit! Herr Premierminister, Sie sind der Premierminister der Labour Party. Unser Freund John Major war im Jahre 1992 jener Ministerpräsident Großbritanniens, der es geschafft hat, eine Finanzielle Vorausschau für die gesamte Europäische Union, damals die Europäische Gemeinschaft, zu schaffen. Ich wünsche Ihnen als Labour-Premier den gleichen Erfolg, wie ihn der Konservative John Major im Jahre 1992 hatte.

(Beifall)

Nun zum letzten Punkt. Herr Präsident, wenn Sie mir noch einige Sekunden geben. Sie sagten, wir müssen die Bürger mitnehmen. Ja, wir müssen die Bürger mitnehmen, aber die Bürger wollen sich sowohl als Repräsentanten ihrer eigenen Länder wie auch gemeinsam als Europäer empfinden. Lassen Sie uns also über die Grenzen der Europäischen Union nachdenken. Nicht jedes Land, das in die Europäische Union hineinmöchte, sollte auch in die Europäische Union aufgenommen werden, denn wir könnten die Identität Europas verlieren. Lassen Sie uns gemeinsam an Europa bauen! Herr Premierminister, es ist jetzt 10.00 Uhr in Brüssel, im Vereinigten Königreich gehen die Uhren noch etwas anders, da ist es 9.00 Uhr. Sie sind heute Morgen früh aufgestanden. Lassen Sie uns immer früh aufstehen, damit wir Europa bauen! Wir müssen aber auch ausgeruht sein, wir müssen besonnen handeln. Wir sagen: Unsere Vision bleibt Europa! Wenn Sie das verwirklichen, stehen wir an Ihrer Seite.

(Beifall)

  Martin Schulz, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Herr Premierminister, ich danke Ihnen für Ihre offene Rede. Es war eine wohltuend offene Rede, und ich weiß, Sie sind ein Mann, der wohltuend offene Worte verträgt. Ich beginne mit einem wohltuend offenen Wort: John Major mag ein großer Brite gewesen sein, dass Sie ihn geschlagen haben, freut uns in besonderer Art und Weise.

(Beifall)

Neben Ihrer Ratspräsidentschaft, Herr Blair, beginnt heute ein anderes europäisches Großereignis, das wir auch nicht vergessen sollten: In diesen Tagen beginnt die Tour de France. Und wenn ich an die Tour de France denke und das auf Großbritannien übertrage, so muss ich sagen: Großbritannien ist in den letzten Jahren immer ein bisschen am Ende des Hauptfeldes geradelt. Wenn ich an Schengen denke, wenn ich an den Euro denke, war Großbritannien sozusagen immer kurz vor dem Besenwagen. Jetzt, Herr Premierminister, müssen Sie sich an die Spitze des Pelotons stellen, und das in einer Bergetappe! Wir sind kurz vor Alpe d’Huez und ich denke, Sie sollten sich überlegen, dass der Toursieger das Gelbe Trikot bekommt, wenn er die ganze Distanz durchhält, wenn er alle Etappen gewinnt. Heute beginnt der Prolog. Der Prolog war vielversprechend, und lassen Sie uns, wenn wir über diesen Prolog reden, genau hinhören, was Sie gesagt haben.

Ja, Sie haben Recht, Herr Premierminister, es ist Zeit für Reformen und Zeit für den Wechsel. Das ist richtig. Ich habe genau gehört, wie Sie gesagt haben, es sei nicht die Zeit, diejenigen, die Europa verändern wollen, des Verrats zu bezichtigen. Richtig! Aber es ist auch nicht die Zeit, diejenigen die unser europäisches Sozialmodell verteidigen wollen, ins Museum zu stellen – auch das ist richtig, Herr Premierminister! Wechsel ist unabdingbare Voraussetzung für die Verbesserung der Lebensbedingungen unserer Menschen. Und Sie haben Recht: Europa braucht mehr Flexibilität, Europa braucht mehr Wettbewerbsfähigkeit nach innen und nach außen. Aber Europa braucht dieses Mehr an Flexibilität und dieses Mehr an Wettbewerbsfähigkeit als Grundvoraussetzung für eine Bedingung, auf die niemand verzichten kann. Wachstum, das geschaffen wird, muss Jobs schaffen, aber nicht allein um der Jobs willen. Die Jobs müssen vielmehr würdige Jobs sein, sie müssen sicher sein, sie müssen anständig entlohnt werden, damit die Menschen würdig von diesen Jobs leben können – das ist unser Ziel in Europa!

(Beifall)

Und wenn der Wechsel, den Sie anstreben, genau dieser Wechsel in der Europäischen Union ist, dann sind die Sozialisten in Europa an der Seite des Sozialisten Tony Blair. Dessen können Sie sicher sein.

Herr Premierminister und Herr Ratspräsident! Wir müssen bei der Reformdebatte, die wir führen, präzise sein. Sie haben Recht, und Kollege Pöttering hat das richtigerweise gesagt – Sie haben Ihn ja heute geradezu in Wallung gebracht – : Wir müssen die Debatten, die notwendig sind, hier führen. Allerdings müssen wir sie dann auch in der Art und Weise führen, dass die Bürger sie nachvollziehen können, und da dürfen wir nicht Äpfel mit Birnen verwechseln. Natürlich müssen wir die Landwirtschaftspolitik reformieren, Herr Premierminister! Und natürlich brauchen wir mehr Ausgaben für Forschung und Entwicklung. Nur dürfen wir dann nicht so tun, als gäbe es in Europa nur Landwirtschaft und keine Forschung und Entwicklung.

Unser Haushaltsexperte, mein Kollege Walter, hat gestern in unserer Fraktion noch einmal Zahlen genannt. Ich will sie mal kurz wiederholen: In der gesamten Europäischen Union geben wir, alle landwirtschaftlichen Ausgaben zusammengenommen, 0,48 % des gesamten europäischen Bruttosozialprodukts für die Landwirtschaft aus. Nehmen Sie die Forschungs- und Entwicklungsausgaben der Union und aller ihrer Mitgliedstaaten zusammen, dann geben wir schon jetzt 0,86 % für Forschung und Entwicklung aus.

Sie haben Recht, das muss mehr werden, und wir müssen in der Landwirtschaft reformieren. Aber das sind langsame Prozesse. Und wir sollten nicht so tun, als wäre Europa nur Landwirtschaft, und keine Forschung und Entwicklung. Das gehört auch zur Glaubwürdigkeit.

(Beifall)

Wir sind an Ihrer Seite, Herr Premierminister, wenn es darum geht, die Europäische Union zu vertiefen. Ich bin dankbar, dass der Ratspräsident Tony Blair hier gesagt hat: Ich bekenne mich zu dieser Verfassung. Ich habe gesehen, wie Sie sie in Rom unterschrieben haben. Und dass Großbritannien sich zu dieser Verfassung unter Ihrem Ratsvorsitz bekennt, finde ich Klasse. Wir haben nämlich genügend Leute, die das öffentlich sagen und hinten herum etwas anderes machen. Politikerinnen und Politiker, die durch ihre Äußerungen Sand ins Getriebe der europäischen Integration streuen und sich anschließend darüber beklagen, dass der europäische Motor stottert – von denen haben wir genug! Dass Sie sich heute Morgen von denen unterschieden haben, das finde ich äußerst lobenswert, und dafür bin ich Ihnen dankbar. Denn das offene Wort und die offene Auseinandersetzung um die Zukunft Europas ist der entscheidende Punkt.

Lassen Sie mich abschließen: Wenn Sie in der Frage des Haushalts, in der Frage der Dienstleistungsrichtlinie, in der Frage der Arbeitszeitrichtlinie zu Kompromissen bereit sind, dann haben Sie uns an Ihrer Seite. Doch die Glaubwürdigkeit einer eigenen Forderung, Herr Premierminister, Herr Ratspräsident, misst sich immer daran, wie viel man selbst bereit ist, in einen Kompromiss einzubringen. Deshalb müssen Sie irgendwann auch sagen, was Sie einbringen wollen. Zu sagen, erst sollen die anderen sich bewegen, dann schau ich mal, wird für den britischen Premierminister gut sein; für den Ratspräsidenten der Europäischen Union ist es nicht genug.

(Beifall)

Geben Sie Acht, wer hier Beifall klatscht: Die Rechte dieses Hauses hat Ihnen eben Beifall geklatscht. Sie hat geflissentlich überhört, dass Sie gesagt haben, wir wollen die Türkei in die Europäische Union aufnehmen. Die Ersten, die Ihnen dafür in die Arme fallen werden, sitzen da, auf dieser Seite des Hauses. Ich danke für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.

(Beifall)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Thank you, Mr President. Prime Minister, you take the helm of a craft lacking direction, wallowing in heavy seas. You have every opportunity to show leadership. For too long your country has been vulnerable to the caricature sketched 50 years ago by the musical comedy duo Flanders and Swann in their ditty ‘The English are best’, which lambasts the character of other Europeans and insists ‘The English are moral, the English are good, and clever and honest .... but misunderstood’!

(Laughter)

Britain has moved on since then – heavens, even England has moved on! Modern, meritocratic Britain has a level of intercultural sensitivity not common to its forebears and your speech today reflects that. But one speech will not suffice to set aside years of suspicion. You need to show that Britain is of Europe, not just with it.

(Applause)

That you will build on the Union’s institutions, not undermine them; that your drive for reform is rooted in creating consensus, not delighting in division; that your protestant work ethic caters for a catholic sense of community.

The phenomenon we call globalisation is re-shaping our world view, as you say. It opens to humankind new opportunities, yet also puts new strains on our societies. The three biggest challenges we face – Third World misery and the migration it generates, climate change, internationally organised crime – all require supranational responses. You are right to direct EU priorities to meeting new global demands, complementing the work of the G8. But we look forward to seeing how you will do all that on 1% of GNI.

(Applause)

You are correct, too, that there is a cognitive dissonance between reality and political debate, that we need to get the politics right and give Europe a compelling narrative. So let me give you three suggestions.

First, Council transparency. Europe can no longer be built on secrecy and spin. If people do not understand what is happening, you cannot reproach them for rejecting it.

(Loud applause)

Change the rules of the Council of Ministers. The public has a right to know what is being decided in their name and by whom, even if they disagree. That is the nature of democracy.

Second, parliamentary scrutiny. National parliaments do not need a European Constitution to scrutinise the European work of their ministers more closely, but they need to be engaged in a process of monitoring and holding ministers to account. The European Parliament must also be listened to if we reject draft laws for infringing citizens’ rights or exceeding EU competences.

Third, public debate. This debate cannot wait for the need to underwrite a treaty that governments have already signed. Did you go out and meet your trumpet-blowing people in your recent general election? As President Borrell pointed out last week, the rejection of the Constitution was less about the text than the context. Last week Le Monde called you ‘le nouvel homme fort de l’Europe’. Show it. The EU will be leaderless for as long as its national leaders play to their public galleries. You will not secure support for supranational solutions if you claim the credit for common successes and blame Brussels for every ill. Stop referring to ‘Europe’ as if it were a thing apart.

Liberals and Democrats will back your presidency and your drive for better regulation. We will help you forge a Financial Services Action Plan to make money move more easily. We will support a single market in services if you protect proper public provision and if you heed our concerns for personal freedom we will tackle terrorism together with the Council.

We also welcome a debate on the structure of a budget inconsistent with the competitiveness and innovation foreseen in Lisbon. Rapid and radical reform of rural spending cannot credibly be contemplated, however, without co-financing the CAP to redress French and British budget imbalances.

Prime Minister, I welcome your speech today. It offers the promise to our continental colleagues of a less perfidious albion. Heed the words of St Francis of Assisi, quoted on a similar occasion by one of your predecessors: bring pardon where there is injury and harmony where there is discord. That is the road to new respect for Britain and the European Union.

(Loud applause)

  Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Premier ministre, je crois qu'aujourd'hui, vous avez lancé un défi. Vous avez dit: "Je veux changer l'Europe". Welcome in the club, Tony. You are welcome in doing this job. Mais alors, mettons les choses au clair.

Vous n'êtes pas le duc Jean de Bedford, M. Balkenende n'est pas l'évêque Cochon et Jacques Chirac n'est pas Jeanne d'Arc. This is old Europe. La guerre de Cent ans est finie et ça, il faut le dire et à Chirac, et à Schröder, et à Blair et aux autres. L'Europe, c'est justement le contraire; voilà pourquoi vous avez dit avec raison: "L'Europe a besoin de leadership", mais qui veut être leader? Aujourd'hui, un leader moderne doit avoir le langage de la vérité.

Monsieur Blair, vous avez applaudi quand M. Barroso a évoqué le 1 %, la lettre des radins que Tony Blair, camarade Tony Blair, vous avez signée! Vous la retirez, votre signature! Welcome in the club, Monsieur Tony Blair, welcome in the club. Et, si j'ai bien compris, en 2002, c'est votre gouvernement qui a refusé le plafonnement des grandes entreprises agricoles, c'est lui qui a donné 300 000 euros pour que le duc de Bedford, la Queen et le prince Charles puissent avoir leurs subsides de l'Union européenne. Welcome in the club, Monsieur Blair, welcome in the club. Et parce que vous avez refusé cela, Tate and Line, la plus grande entreprise de sucre, a reçu 180 millions d'euros l'année dernière. Welcome in the club, Monsieur Blair. Vous allez en finir avec Tate and Line, les aides et les subventions européennes, car ils ne l'ont pas mérité, nous sommes d'accord avec vous, Monsieur Blair. Vous voyez, dire la vérité, est parfois difficile.

Vous avez dit une autre chose très intéressante; vous avez dit: "Un homme politique doit affronter les populations." Vous avez raison. Nous, moi, j'ai perdu le référendum en Europe, on doit affronter cette défaite. Affrontez la vôtre, le peuple européen a dit non à l'invasion de l'Irak. Affrontez le peuple européen aussi sur ce sujet. Welcome in the club, Monsieur Blair.

Il est toujours très facile de donner des leçons à tout le monde et je suis un spécialiste pour donner des leçons, je sais que c'est facile. Mais s'il y a une chose que je sais, c'est que si vous voulez moderniser l'Europe, il faut que ce soit une modernisation écologiquement soutenable et socialement durable. Voilà ce que nous vous demandons.

Si vous dites que le modèle français ne marche pas, que le gouvernement de droite français ne marche pas, vous avez raison. Si vous dites que le gouvernement allemand ne marche visiblement pas, vous avez sûrement raison. Mais, dans ce cas, le problème, c'est que l'Europe ne peut pas fonctionner sur le modèle de la Grande-Bretagne, l'Europe ne peut pas fonctionner sur le modèle de la France, l'Europe ne peut pas fonctionner sur le modèle du Luxembourg ou des Pays-Bas. L'intelligence européenne, c'est justement de trouver un mix des modèles et, pour cela, Monsieur Blair, vous ne devez pas rester Premier ministre de Grande-Bretagne, mais devenir président de l'Europe, avec une vision de l'Europe.

Il y a des problèmes économiques et sociaux, il y a des problèmes d'environnement. Prenez donc la charge et dites que l'Europe, toute l'Europe, doit respecter les engagements de Kyoto. Prenez la charge et que l'Angleterre prenne la charge de donner plus que 0,35 % à l'aide au développement, parce que la pauvreté dans le monde en a besoin. M. Jean-Claude Juncker avait raison de proposer d'éradiquer, dans la première moitié de ce siècle, la pauvreté dans le monde. Prenons cet engagement ensemble. Welcome in the club, Tony, we are with you.

Pour en finir, cela fait exactement dix ans qu'il y a eu Srebrenica, cela fait dix ans que l'Europe, la honte de l'Europe et du monde, était sous nos yeux. Je vous demande de prendre une initiative. Les accords de Dayton ne peuvent pas et ne font pas fonctionner la Bosnie et les Balkans. Prenez cette grande initiative, allez voir votre copain Georges Bush, allez voir votre copain Chirac, allez voir tous vos copains et dites: "Il faut en finir avec Dayton, l'Europe a (...)"

(Le Président retire la parole à l'orateur.)

  Francis Wurtz, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, vous avez, Monsieur le Premier ministre, mis le doigt avec raison sur l'incapacité dramatique de l'Union, telle qu'elle est, à répondre aux attentes de nos concitoyens. Vous avez parlé de changements, de modernisation, de solidarité. Fort bien. Voyons à présent les choses d'un peu plus près. En l'espace d'un mois, à trois reprises, dans un contexte chaque fois très différent, nous avons eu l'occasion de prendre connaissance des grandes priorités de la présidence britannique.

La première fois, c'était le 26 mai dernier par le biais d'une déclaration succincte et très concrète de M. Gordon Brown, Chancelier de l'Échiquier, à la Chambre des Communes. J'en retiendrai quatre points.

Premièrement, je cite: "Toute proposition législative doit être soumise au test de l'impact de la compétitivité". Deuxièmement, un groupe consultatif, indépendant et centré sur le business doit être mis en place, je cite: "to give business central role in the EU role making and simplification process". Troisièmement, nous allons tenir une conférence à Londres en juillet sur la réduction des aides d'État. Quatrièmement, nous lançons un appel à la création d'un marché financier transatlantique sans entraves. Oserais-je vous dire, Monsieur le Premier ministre, que l'audace sociale de ces axes de travail ne saute pas aux yeux.

Pourtant, quelques jours plus tard, dans une interview au Financial Times, vous disiez vouloir être à l'écoute de ce qui venait de s'exprimer à travers les référendums français et néerlandais. À ce titre, vous appeliez déjà à une réflexion sur le modèle social européen. Une telle réflexion me paraît en effet nécessaire, mais elle l'est pour tirer les enseignements du démantèlement systématique que ce fameux modèle a subi un peu partout ces dernières années au nom du "tout marché". Car, comme le soulignait avec beaucoup d'à-propos le commissaire McCreevy dans le cadre de l'European Policy Forum le 24 janvier dernier, je le cite: "We should remember that the internal market programme is by far the greatest deregulatory exercise in recent history". La question est donc de réfléchir sur le modèle social, oui, mais dans quel sens?

Votre conviction semble être que le top du top en la matière est votre propre modèle puisqu'il limite le chômage apparent à quelque 5 % de la population active. Ce chiffre-symbole résume-t-il ce modèle? Tel ne semble pas être le cas de tous les Britanniques. Ainsi, pour M. John Monks, président de la CES, qui vous est pourtant proche, le modèle anglo-saxon n'est pas plus populaire auprès des électeurs britanniques qu'ailleurs en Europe. Je crois savoir que de nombreux représentants du monde du travail en Grande-Bretagne souhaitent de profonds changements. Pourquoi les ignorez-vous? On tire plus de profit à écouter les doutes qu'à répéter des certitudes.

La troisième fois qu'il nous a été donné de voir quelles sont les ambitions pour votre semestre de présidence et au-delà, c'est naturellement lors de votre prestation au dernier Conseil européen. Comme le dit une chanson célèbre: "Du passé vous voulez faire table rase" ou du moins engager une remise à plat de la PAC et du budget. Fort bien. Mais là aussi, la seule question qui vaille, c'est pour changer dans quelle direction?

Concernant la PAC, d'accord pour une modulation des aides pour tenir compte de l'environnement et de l'aménagement du territoire et éviter le productivisme. D'accord aussi pour remettre en cause les aides aux exportations qui concurrencent directement les productions des pays en développement, notamment africains. D'accord mille fois pour plafonner les aides afin qu'elles n'aillent pas enrichir les riches, ou encore les pseudo-paysans qui siègent à la Chambre des Lords, mais pas d'accord pour jeter l'enfant avec l'eau du bain, une agriculture authentique qui nous mette à l'abri de fléaux comme la vache folle et qui nous garantisse la souveraineté alimentaire face à l'"agro-business", notamment américain. C'est un enjeu de civilisation.

Quant au fameux rabais, vous devrez tôt ou tard y renoncer tant il heurtera le sens commun. Les Européens doivent savoir qu'en 2005, le montant de ce chèque dépasse le budget européen de la recherche. Il représente plus que toutes les aides de préadhésion à la Roumanie et à la Bulgarie sur trois ans. Il équivaut cette année à la moitié de toutes les aides agricoles et structurelles versées à la totalité des dix nouveaux pays membres. Il vous permet de vous défausser de vos responsabilités sur l'élargissement et il vous aide sans doute à financer la guerre en Irak. Au final, votre part dans le financement du budget de l'Union est inférieur de quatre points et demi à votre part dans le revenu communautaire. Où est la solidarité dans tout cela? Vous voulez, Monsieur le Premier ministre, parler de l'Europe du futur? Eh bien, chiche, parlons-en!

(Applaudissements)

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, Prime Minister, what a change since 1997 in terms of the rhetoric! Suddenly we have a Labour British Prime Minister talking about low growth in Europe, talking about unemployment in Europe, talking about the failure of European economic policies and common policies. In fact it all sounds a bit like the same sort of thing UKIP has been saying for the last ten years and I am delighted to hear it.

There you were at the Summit last week, the tough British Prime Minister, and I am sure that millions of people at home were watching the early evening news saying there he is! That is our boy, he is the man that is going to stand up for British interests. In fact it seems to me that you are a europhile that has been mugged by reality. Now you are going to lead a battle for the future of Europe. Several times in the last week you have talked about the 21st century, you have talked about the need to modernise. It seems that the devastatingly brilliant third way that you introduced into British politics is what you are going to bring in during this presidency here. The question is, will it work in the European Union?

I am the joint leader of the only Group in this Parliament that has actively been campaigning for ‘no’ votes in the Constitutional referendums. So we feel that we are perhaps rather more in touch with public opinion than all the rest of the Groups in this Parliament.

(Cheers from the IND/DEM Group)

But I have to say that you are just about the only European Leader who really understands why the people of France and Holland voted ‘no’. I agree with what you said earlier, i.e. that they were saying ‘no’ to the direction that the European Union is going in. I am asking you in your presidency to make sure that those people in France and Holland are not treated with contempt. I am asking you to make sure that the parts of the Constitution such as the separate military command structure, the European Space programme and the establishment of the European Union foreign embassies across the world are halted because they are only given legitimacy by a Constitution that is now best part dead.

You have talked much in recent times about Africa and I know you are very proud of the fact that the aid that will be going to Africa is going up in value. However, the one thing I have spoken on more times in this House since 1999 than any other subject are the appalling European Union fisheries deals with black Africa. There are now over twenty of these deals in place. They are destroying any hope, any prospect for the local artisanal fishermen. We are actually killing hundreds and hundreds of local fishermen every year and what we are doing to the seas off Africa is the environmental equivalent to setting fire to the Serengeti. Everybody here has been deaf to what I have been saying on this, but I believe there is now a body of support across this Parliament to end these deals. If you really want to help Africa, please, stop those deals.

(Applause)

But of course the big challenge, and what you will be judged by, is whether you can turn this ship around; whether you can make Europe more competitive; whether you can make the Lisbon Agenda appear to be rather more than just a child’s wish list to Father Christmas.

Of course my view – our view in UKIP and most of us here on this side of the House – is that we would much rather see a common market. We would much rather see a free trade deal across Europe, rather than the Treaty of Rome and all that has come since. I know that you are not going to do that over the course of the next six months, but I think you have got a real problem. You said earlier that you wanted Europe to do what it was set up to do. Jean Monnet was the inspiration behind this and he wanted a system whereby, under the acquis communautaire, the Community picked up power along the way. I would argue that if you now speak to small and medium-sized businesses – not just in Britain, but right across the European Union – the trouble is that the legislation, the acquis communautaire, the body of law, has gone too far already. The challenge for your presidency – and perhaps you could explain to me in your response – is how you are going to turn the ship around. If you can reform the European Union, Mr Blair, then I may even change my mind. I may even think it is worth us staying as a Member State.

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I too would like to join with my colleagues in welcoming Prime Minister Blair to the House and thanking him for his contribution and his speech this morning.

Much as I appreciate that speech, I am somewhat disconcerted by Gordon Brown’s annual address at the Mansion House last night. Despite the good words and the good intentions, I have three separate conclusions about what we saw last weekend, what we read in the papers from Britain, what we have seen in the news media over the last few days and what Mr Brown said in his speech last night.

Firstly, the plan is: dump the common agricultural policy. Ensure that any budget changes that are made will be predicated upon getting rid of the common agricultural policy. This is despite the fact that in 2002 there was a unanimous agreement amongst all Member States that the CAP budget will be fixed for a period up to 2013 on foot of reforms and on foot of sacrifices made by people living in rural areas and people involved in agriculture, including the reduction in the annual budget of CAP because there was no cost of living increase or no inflation index allowed for increasing of funding. So therefore what people really need to see is certainty.

Second, much emphasis is being placed upon the lack of ability on the part of Europe to deliver on things like the Lisbon Agenda and creating more jobs. Let us get real about this. Europe is as incapable of creating jobs as the British Government is of creating jobs. It is up to us as legislators and as rule makers to ensure that the legislation and the regulations that we put down do not impede private industry and private business to give them the right atmosphere, the right opportunity in which to thrive and to grow. And it is ridiculous to speak about how we must do more at European level when at the same time you will not increase the budget that is available to the European Union to undertake this work, despite the fact that the numbers of people involved in the European Union and the number of countries involved in the European Union has increased.

I think that if we want to speak about real debate and real engagement then that debate and that engagement must be based upon facts, certainties, not the continuous misconception, myth and innuendo that have been cast about over the last 20 years. Last night I heard Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight saying that the reform of the sugar regime in Europe was the most disreputable and inefficient form of subsidy given to farmers in Europe and is harming farmers in developing countries. On the same report about these reforms we heard the President of Guyana, the chairman of the Jamaican sugar industry and the chairman of the Mozambique sugar industry saying what a disaster these reforms would be for those countries. The President of Guyana actually said that they would receive EUR 8 million in debt relief because of the fantastic initiative undertaken by yourself and your government as leaders of the G8 with regard to alleviating debt in Africa and it would cost them GBP 44 million to try and comply with the reforms that would be put forward.

Finally, some will say that we are standing on the edge looking into the abyss. As I said to you in London last week, I believe we are standing at the dawn of a new future. You can give the leadership but that leadership requires compromise and consensus. It requires you to bring the other actors together to ensure we have a success.

(Applause)

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Mr President, speaking as a British Conservative I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Blair on his recent robust defence of the British rebate in the House of Commons and in Westminster. I urge him to stand firm on the rebate and to honour the clear commitments he has made. I also commend his conversion to a long-standing Conservative policy, that of wide-ranging reform of the EU; reform which is essential now that the EU has ceased to command the respect, or to engage the enthusiasm, of the public.

However, as John Redwood said this morning on the Today programme, if Mr Blair is serious about reform and deregulation he will have had a team in place for months working out detailed plans. Who are these people? What are these plans?

I am concerned that he has agreed to a period of reflection on the Constitution. There is nothing to reflect about. The decision of French and Dutch voters is extremely clear: France and Holland did not vote for a slightly different Constitution, they voted against the Constitution in its entirety. Under its own terms the Constitution cannot take effect until all Member States ratify it, which will not now happen.

UK voters, given the chance, would have rejected the Constitution by a still wider margin than France or Holland. Overwhelmingly they want trade and cooperation in Europe, they reject your political union.

Mr Blair, will you agree with me that meaningful reform of the EU will require radical renegotiations of the Treaties, including the Treaty of Rome? Will you make this a key objective of the British presidency? Finally, Mr Blair, may I thank you for staying to listen to the debate here today, which you so rarely do in Westminster.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on behalf of the Conservative delegation and my European Democrat colleagues, can I welcome the Prime Minister and say that we hope the British presidency will indeed be a truly reforming one.

It is important for our country and our national interest that Britain gives leadership to Europe at a time when fundamental questions on its future are being asked. However, it has to be the right kind of leadership and it has to be the right kind of future. The events of recent weeks have indeed been a wake-up call for politicians across the Union. The fact that the people of France and the Netherlands, two founding States, voted emphatically against the Constitution has to be of profound significance.

I regret that the European Council did not respond decisively to these votes by declaring the Constitution dead. Mr Blair has said that there needs to be a real debate on the kind of European Union that we want in the future and I agree with him. I look to him to lead that debate in the coming months.

We hope that he will show his leadership by explaining exactly what he meant by his comments the other day that there is more than one view on Europe's future. Earlier this week Mr Blair said the crisis is about the failure of leaders to reach agreement with the people who see the world changing, and who want answers to the challenges they face. Well, British Conservatives have been saying this for years about the European Union as we have led the way here in the fields of liberalising our economies, deregulation, the Lisbon Agenda and open accountability and control of our budgets.

If he is now rather belatedly accepting our positions, I certainly welcome his conversion. However, this is not just a crisis of leadership, as he says, but it is also a crisis of legitimacy within the EU institutions. Fine words from our government are all very well, but what we now need is action. The social model has not succeeded in Europe and millions of unemployed with low growth and inflexible labour markets personify economic decline. We now have to compete with India, China and the United States, and the longer we brush the reality aside, the Lisbon Agenda remains nothing but an aspiration.

I turn now to the future financing of the Union. The Prime Minister was right to defend the British rebate. There is a reason for this rebate existing, and it is as strong as it was in 1984. The apparent slippage in the Government's position, which has been confirmed this morning by the Prime Minister, is of concern to us and we obviously watch carefully to ensure that British taxpayers do not become pawns in discussions over the future of our budget.

In conclusion I want to urge the Prime Minister not to be deflected from his stated goals of reform in the Union. We want his rhetoric of recent days to be matched by real leadership and real action.

We hope that he can deliver. It is the interests of all of us that he delivers what he says he will. When we judge him in December we hope that he will not have failed us.

  Gary Titley (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to welcome the future President-in-Office by quoting Charles Dickens: 'it was the best of times, it was the worst of times, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us'. So it is with the European Union. At the time of our greatest success, the enlargement to 25, we find ourselves cast down by doubts and recriminations. Globalisation has bred insecurity among our citizens, causing some to doubt the European project and to embrace protectionism and isolationism. Yet it is only by coherent European action that we can confront the threats and seize the opportunities of globalisation.

Unfortunately, much of what the EU has achieved is now taken for granted by the voters and is regarded, frankly, as 'old hat'. We have to define a modern vision of the European Union and its purpose and relevance; a vision based on concrete outcomes, not processes; a vision based on certain key principles.

Firstly, the importance of international partnerships and particularly the most successful partnership of them all, the European Union. We have to recognise that the strength of the EU lies in its supranational institutions which complement and supplement national sovereignty and do not replace it. Secondly, our ability to deliver jobs for our citizens and economic security for their families is central to our continuing success. A successful economy is not an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy, but the key to our survival.

The European Union has already done a lot. In recent days we have heard that EU membership costs this country EUR 20 per head, or that country EUR 50 per head. These figures are insignificant compared with the EUR 6 000 per head by which the single market has benefited its citizens through extra growth. But we must do more to harness the knowledge economy by investing in the projects of the future and not the past.

Economic efficiency depends on social justice. Prosperity comes from a secure workforce and a society that invests in all its citizens, excluding no-one. We need active labour market policies to help people find and keep work. A third of our working-age population is economically inactive. That figure is a disgrace and stands to the condemnation of the EU and its Member States.

Finally, we need an open society where people are free to travel to find work. Such an open society has to be fair and just and not a free ride for the criminals and the terrorists. That is why I particularly welcome the presidency programme on justice and home affairs. Real progress here will show our citizens the benefits of European action. The presidency has to bring Member States together to build a competitive Europe and a Europe capable of giving leadership in the world on issues such as security, climate change and world poverty, the very issues that our citizens are concerned about. I wish you the best of luck.

  Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ALDE). – Hr. formand. Hr. Blair, tak for et fantastisk engageret indlæg. De er en formidabel taler, og De er meget overbevisende. Men De ville have været mere troværdig, hvis De havde fremlagt den samme europæiske vision for Deres vælgere ved det sidste parlamentsvalg, De havde. Jeg ser Deres formandskab som en historisk udfordring. De kan om seks måneder enten overdrage formandskabet til Østrig som Europas samler, eller De kan lukke døren med et smæld og efterlade Europa endnu mere splittet end i dag. Det er op til Dem. Først og fremmest handler det om at sætte den europæiske dagsorden over den nationale. Det er svært og kræver lederskab, men det kræver også en vilje, og jeg håber, De har den. Og frem for alt bør De nu som en af de ledende i udvidelsesprocessen vise solidaritet over for vores nye medlemslande.

Det glæder mig, at De sætter servicedirektivet højt, og at De vil arbejde meget med at fjerne de administrative besværligheder. Netop ved at skaffe et frit marked for serviceydelser kan vi give vores borgere job og forbrugerne en valgmulighed til fornuftige, rimelige priser. Jeg glæder mig til om seks måneder at se, at De har bestået prøven som Europas bedste leder. Så vil jeg med glæde give Dem eksamensbeviset.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, in the past Mr Blair has said that climate change is the biggest threat that we face. He said that it would be a priority for the British presidency. Yet, Mr Blair, we have had just half a sentence on climate change from you in your speech here today. Moreover, yours is a government under which greenhouse gas emissions have actually risen. Yours is a government which has attempted to increase the volume of emissions allowable to British industry under the EU emissions trading scheme. That is hardly a very good start for someone who is pledging to show international leadership on the issue of climate change.

I would like to challenge you to make three key assurances about your presidency. First, to promote mandatory targets for energy efficiency across the European Union. Second, to adopt targets for renewables which are consistent with a reduction of between 30 to 40 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Third, to rule out nuclear power as any kind of so-called solution to reducing CO2 emissions.

When you lecture the rest of Europe about the merits of modernisation, competition and flexibility, yet leave out any reference at all to sustainability: it completely undermines any claims you make to be committed to sustainable development. Yes, Europe must change as you say, but unless that change puts sustainability at its heart then your presidency will lose a vital opportunity to help the European Union regain public support and it will squander a key moment to address climate change seriously.

  Roberto Musacchio (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi Lei signor Blair, non è la soluzione ai problemi dell'Europa, in realtà Lei è uno dei problemi. Lei non è il nuovo, ma è il vecchio.

I problemi dell'Europa si chiamano incapacità ad operare per la pace e Lei, non lo dimentichiamo, ha fatto la guerra in Iraq con Bush. Si chiamano crisi democratica, politica, economica e sociale dovuta proprio alle politiche liberiste, monetariste, tecnocratiche di cui lei è propugnatore, spacciando per nuove, idee vecchie.

Lei parla di Europa politica, ma in realtà l'affida tutta al mercato, perché per lei politica, economia e mercato sono la stessa cosa. In realtà se lei coglie che c'è la morte di questo trattato costituzionale liberista, la ricetta che ci propone è del tutto sbagliata, con riforme liberiste, a partire da quella dei servizi e del mercato del lavoro: questa sua ricetta non gode di buona salute neanche nel suo paese, come abbiamo visto con le elezioni.

No! La soluzione ai problemi dell'Europa è ben altra, e sta proprio in quell'europeismo di sinistra e di massa che è emerso consapevolmente da cittadini che hanno letto e capito e si sono espressi con il voto in Francia e in Olanda, che ha esplicitamente contestato non la Turchia o l'allargamento, ma il liberismo e che chiede una Costituzione materiale e formale di una nuova Europa di pace, democratica e sociale, che può trovare su questo un'ampia convergenza con tanti cittadini che hanno votato un sì critico.

E' questa la nostra Europa e questo Parlamento ha una grande responsabilità cui non può e non deve fuggire, non si tratta di inseguire nuovi presunti leader, ma di essere fino in fondo un nuovo Parlamento. Questa crisi non è crisi di conti e di egoismi, di computer contro contadini, ma noi non dimentichiamo come è cominciata la "mucca pazza". Anche, anche questo, ma è soprattutto la crisi incontrovertibile di un'idea liberista: non produrre un'altra idea di Europa sarebbe veramente imperdonabile.

  Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (IND/DEM). – Panie Przewodniczący, Szanowny Panie Premierze, Szanowni Państwo. Totalna krytyka Wielkiej Brytanii po niepowodzeniu szczytu Rady Europejskiej nie wydaje się uzasadniona. Przeciwnie, istnieją silne przesłanki, aby sądzić, że prezydencja brytyjska nie chce kierować się przypisywanym jej egoizmem narodowym. Z nakreślonych przez nią priorytetów wynika bowiem, że Unia będzie raczej zmierzać ku solidarności krajów członkowskich, wracając tym samym do myśli jej ojców-założycieli. Napawa optymizmem fakt, że wolą prezydencji jest zreformowanie skostniałych struktur Unii Europejskiej. To pragmatyczne, skierowane ku przyszłości podejście jest niezwykle cenne i może stanowić nowy impuls w rozwoju i współpracy narodów Europy zastępując mityczną ideę budowy super państwa z pogrzebaną na szczęście konstytucją. W jednym z ostatnio udzielonych wywiadów Pan Premier Tony Blair, poruszając kwestię tzw. rabatu brytyjskiego, powiedział między innymi, że Wielka Brytania gotowa jest płacić więcej, ale tylko wtedy, kiedy pieniądze nie popłyną do państw bogatych ale do biednych. Ta filozofia myślenia stwarza ogromną szansę dla najbiedniejszych regionów Europy. Pięć z nich znajduje się w Polsce. Są to np. regiony lubelski czy podkarpacki: mają duże braki w infrastrukturze, ale dysponują również potencjałem w postaci potężnych ośrodków uniwersyteckich. Te i wiele innych regionów Europy potrzebuje właśnie takiej racjonalnej polityki. Pozostaje mieć nadzieję, że silna prezydencja brytyjska będzie wspierana w swych działaniach przez wszystkie kraje członkowskie Unii. Jestem przekonany, że również Francja i Niemcy poprą europejską solidarność, zasadę, która legła u podstaw budowy Wspólnoty Europejskiej, o czym obecni przywódcy tych krajów zdają się nie pamiętać.

  Mogens N.J. Camre (UEN). – Hr. formand. Hr. premierminister. Det store flertal i Danmark ønsker ligesom englænderne ikke EU's forfatning, for vi ønsker ikke at afgive vores suverænitet til politikere, der gør det så dårligt som EU i dag. Hr. Blair, De er en meget populær politiker i Danmark, men vi vil respektere Dem endnu mere, hvis De får forfatningen begravet, for De ved jo udmærket, at den ikke løser et eneste af de problemer, som optager europæerne, og som De beskrev meget præcist.

Jeg vil takke Dem for Deres planer om at ændre EU's budget. Det er i dag helt forkalket. Det er ikke de rigeste, der betaler mest, og det er ikke de fattigste, der modtager mest. EU's støttepolitik, både når det gælder landbrug og strukturer, har mistet enhver mening. Der er tale om, at de lande, som er flittige og villige til at beskatte deres borgere hårdt, betaler til lande, som ikke gennemfører reformer og ikke vil beskatte deres borgere. Vi taler og taler om forskning og udvikling, men det er ikke det, vi bruger pengene til. Vi ser frem til de reformer, som De vil fremlægge, og jeg ønsker Dem held og lykke.

  Ashley Mote (NI). – Mr President, the voters of France and Holland have denied power to those they no longer trust, as indeed we would have done in the UK had we had the chance. We are now left with the worst possible solution: the Constitution is dead, but we have the structures and methods to govern a unitary state still in place.

Projects have been started which depended on the Constitution for their legitimacy. A European president and foreign minister, a European public prosecutor, diplomatic service, space policy, a European Defence Agency and Rapid Reaction Force, a Fundamental Rights Agency to enforce a charter that now has no standing, a police force and a European asylum and immigration policy. These bits of the Constitution cannot be forced into being against the will of the people.

We have had far too much unaccountable and interfering government from this place over the years. The British presidency should take three immediate and crucial steps: to enforce the rule of law in this place; to abandon projects which pre-empted the Constitution and now have no legal basis; and to guarantee that no attempt will be made to implement any part of it.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Premier ministre, vous voulez remettre à plat les anomalies de l'Europe? Eh bien, votre présence aujourd'hui à Bruxelles est une anomalie. Vous devriez savoir que la présentation du programme d'activités d'une présidence de l'Union européenne se fait à Strasbourg, site officiel du Parlement européen. Oui, l'Europe est en crise, le Sommet a été un échec et votre future présidence se trouve devant un choix crucial: soit l'Europe d'un vaste ensemble économique sans queue ni tête dans lequel les sorcières danseraient autour d'un projet de Constitution enterré, une sorte de Blair witch project, soit vous lâchez le frein à main pour aider à prendre ce tournant historique qu'est l'avènement d'une véritable Europe politique.

Monsieur le Premier ministre, vous avez du talent, le discours est brillant. Mais qui croire entre M. Juncker et vous? Vous avez préféré créer la crise pour mieux surfer sur cette crise et servir vos intérêts. Si vous voulez exercer le leadership de l'Europe, cessez d'abord d'avoir un pied dans l'Europe et un pied en dehors.

Alors, oui à la modernisation sociale, mais nous ne voulons pas de votre précarité. Oui au développement des biotechnologies, oui à un budget européen rationnel, oui à une vraie défense européenne, mais souvenez-vous que la PAC est un fondement de l'Union européenne qui ne peut être voué à disparaître, mais dont la survie dépend de son évolution. Vous voulez faire progresser la lutte contre la criminalité et l'immigration clandestine? Mais comment vous croire alors que depuis dix ans, le Royaume-Uni s'oppose systématiquement à la coopération judiciaire et policière?

Enfin, comment expliquer que les chefs d'État et de gouvernement réclament dans leur pays l'idée d'un moratoire sur l'élargissement de l'Europe et que, de l'autre, au Conseil, on laisse ouvertes toutes les portes?

Monsieur Blair, les citoyens européens ne sont plus d'accord. Il est temps aujourd'hui de cesser les doubles langages, car ils ont conduit au pire. Monsieur Blair, vous avez beaucoup à prouver pour avoir notre confiance.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Premierminister Tony Blair! Sie treten ein schweres Erbe an. Wir hatten gestern Premierminister Juncker in diesem Haus, wir haben seine Emotionalität, sein Engagement für die europäische Sache sehr geschätzt und ihm großen Beifall gespendet. Sie haben heute die andere Hälfte der Wahrheit gebracht, und ich kann sehr viel von dem verstehen. Und wenn viele Kolleginnen und Kollegen die Vorurteile, die sich in den letzten Jahren aufgebaut haben, abbauen würden, dann würden sie mit sehr viel von dem, was heute hier gesagt wurde, übereinstimmen.

Wir brauchen aber Ihr volles Engagement in Europa, Ihr persönliches und das Ihres Landes. Es ist nicht leicht bei der britischen Presse und Öffentlichkeit, aber was wir brauchen ist ein Opting in und kein Opting out, und ich hoffe, Sie sind ein Ratspräsident, der dieses Opting in vertritt.

Lassen Sie mich ein paar Punkte nennen: Erstens, die Arbeitslosigkeit. Sie haben hier in Großbritannien enorme Erfolge erzielt. Wer es objektiv betrachtet, muss das zugeben. Sie sind von einer sehr hohen Arbeitslosigkeit während der Thatcher-Ära zu einer sehr niedrigen Arbeitslosigkeit, einer der niedrigsten in Europa, gelangt. Das brauchen wir. Wir brauchen allerdings auch, wie Kollege Schulz gesagt hat, Jobs die Würde geben, gerade auch im Zusammenhang mit der Erweiterung. Ich bin Ihnen sehr dankbar für Ihre Worte zu Gunsten der Erweiterung. Wir müssen jedoch darauf achten, dass es nicht zu neuen Spaltungen kommt, und nicht zum Missbrauch von Arbeitnehmern aus Osteuropa, die leider immer wieder extrem unterbezahlt werden.

Zweitens, was die Frage der Dienstleistungsrichtlinie betrifft: Sie haben vollkommen Recht. Wir brauchen einen gemeinsamen Markt an Dienstleistungen. Wir müssen das aber stufenweise machen. Und wir brauchen auch etwas, was Sie nicht erwähnt sondern nur indirekt angesprochen haben: öffentliche Dienstleistungen. Sie müssen, wie Sie selbst erwähnen, in Großbritannien aufgrund von Mangelerscheinungen massiv in öffentliche Dienstleistungen, z.B. Verkehr, Gesundheit und Wohnen, investieren. Auch das muss ergänzend zum Dienstleistungssektor erfolgen, den wir liberalisieren.

Wenn die Menschen sehen, dass dieses Europa für einen gemeinsamen Markt ist, aber gleichzeitig auch für jene öffentlichen Dienstleistungen, die ihnen sehr am Herzen liegen, dann werden sie auch die Liberalisierungsschritte durchaus akzeptieren.

Zur Erweiterung: Sie haben vollkommen Recht. Wir können nicht Stopp machen. Wir müssen die Erweiterung allerdings in beiden Bereichen besser vorbereiten: in den neuen Mitgliedstaaten, aber auch in den bestehenden Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union, denn es wurde oft zu Unrecht damit argumentiert, dass die Erweiterung eben zum Schaden der bestehenden Mitglieder ist. Sie haben mit Recht gesagt, das stimmt nicht. Aber wir müssen das auch gegenüber der eigenen Bevölkerung vertreten.

Ganz entscheidend ist auch die Außenpolitik. Herr Premierminister, Großbritannien hat traditionell gute Beziehungen zu den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Sie haben besonders gute Beziehungen zu Präsident Bush. Das kann ein Vorteil für Europa sein, wenn klar ist, dass Sie auch für Europa sprechen, wenn klar ist, dass Sie die europäische Position in Washington vertreten. Wenn Sie das tun, dann werden wir voll auf Ihrer Seite sein.

Eines der größten Projekte – sie haben es erwähnt – ist der Nahe Osten. Wir brauchen diesen Frieden im Nahen Osten, der Nahe Osten ist unsere Nachbarschaft. Es ist nicht irgendeine Region in der Welt. Es ist unsere Nachbarschaft, und wir brauchen den Friedensschluss zwischen den Palästinensern und den Israelis. Sie haben versprochen, da sehr aktiv zu sein. Das waren Sie in den letzten Monaten auch, aber die kritische Phase kommt erst, wenn wir bedenken, dass der Abzug aus Gaza unmittelbar bevorsteht. Aus einer europäischen Position heraus darf es nicht Gaza first und Gaza last heißen, sondern wir müssen hier eine fortschrittlichere Position beziehen.

Und zuletzt: Pflegen Sie Ihre guten Beziehungen zu Washington, aber Brüssel ist London näher als Washington. Auch wenn Präsident Bush Sie in Washington braucht, wir brauchen Sie hier in Brüssel.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Mr President, Europe will never be brought closer to the people, and national parliaments can never hope to hold Ministers to account so long as Europe's most powerful law-making body continues to meet in secret. Is it any wonder that people complain of a democratic deficit in Europe when debate about new laws in the Council of Ministers takes place behind closed doors?

The Prime Minister will recognise this failing. In signing the Constitutional Treaty he accepted that the Council should meet in public when it deliberates upon legislative acts. But no referendum or treaty is required, just a simple vote in the General Affairs Council. The support of just 13 Member States is an easy task. It is a quick win.

The Prime Minister says it is time for Europe to make choices. So here is a simple one for him to make: maintain the culture of secrecy or put the principles of openness and transparency into practice.

(Applause)

  Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE). – Mr Blair, I listened very carefully to your presentation, in particular the emphasis on solidarity in combating poverty. However, the delay in the agreement on the EU budget means that my constituency, West Wales and the Valleys – an Objective 1 area – has lost its chance for full convergence funding after 2007. While the UK Government focused on retaining the rebate, Wales lost up to GBP 3 billion and next year will be too late, so the UK’s interest was not in Wales’ interest.

I want Europe to change. We want a Europe where nations like Wales can play a full part in their own right. It is essential that we make Europe more relevant to people. In line with that aim and following the example of the Irish presidency, and more recently the Spanish Government, I call upon the UK presidency to request that Welsh be made an official language of the European Union. To translate that into Welsh myself as I have to do in this Chamber at present:

(The speaker spoke Welsh)

  Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Mr President, I would like to extend a failte mór to you, Mr Blair, and to wish to well in your presidency of the European Union. We are all aware of the challenges that lie ahead for the European Union both economically and socially. I want to support what you said earlier on and I agree with you, if we want to see a maturing and a strengthening of the European social model, we need vibrant economies, that is plain for everyone to see.

Last week's events, however, saw an unfortunate and heated debate on the financial situation of the European Union. Some of that debate unfortunately centred around the common agricultural policy. Opinion is greatly divided on the effectiveness and the long-term sustainability of the common agricultural policy, but one of its most ambitious aims is to support and sustain the European Union’s rural communities, which are under serious threat.

We live in a world where half a million people move from a rural environment to an urban environment every single week. In 1970, 63% of the world's population lived in a rural environment, in 2020 it will be 45 per cent. The challenges that lie ahead are great, not just for the quality of life for those who reside in an increasingly urbanised Europe. Bearing that in mind, I would ask you, Mr Blair, to concentrate on the urban problems as opposed to dismantling the CAP, which hopefully will strengthen rural communities in the years ahead.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Mr President, after the rejections of the Constitution, the Prime Minister rightly said that profound questions now arose about the future of Europe. From the example of last weekend, it is clear that the over-centralised EU is presently not working. Although Mr Juncker, yesterday, sought to make the United Kingdom a scapegoat, the reality is that it is the structures and policies of Europe which are fatally flawed. I suspect from your speech, Mr Blair, that you are not prepared to face the real questions that arise from that. Sticking-plaster politics do not work. You should know that from Northern Ireland. Ever-closer union has failed. It is time to embrace the primacy of the nation states over the stifling control of Brussels. It is time to repatriate key powers. It is time to return to making free trade, not political union, the cornerstone of Europe.

Finally, I urge you, as Prime Minister, to continue to take a firm stand in defence of the justified rebate, which you can properly defend on its own merits …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  József Szájer (PPE-DE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Mint az új tagországok egyik első felszólaló képviselője azzal kell kezdenem, hogy sem az alkotmányos szerződés, sem pedig a költségvetési vita nem az új tagok miatt vezetett válsághoz az EU-ban. Ezt a tizenötök hozták össze. Meggyőződésem, hogy a ma gyakran elmeszesedett európai gazdaságnak éppen az elmúlt évtizedekben hatalmas változásokat végrehajtó dinamikus új tagországok példája adhat megújulást. Munkahelyek, növekedés, család és polgárbarát biztonságos Európa.

Amikor a kiutat keressük, kezdjük a még fennálló, az Unióban levő igazságtalan és alaptalan megkülönböztetésekkel. Miniszterelnök úr, az ön országa azon kevesek közé tartozik, amely nem ijedt meg az új tagországok munkavállalóitól. Itt a feladat: haladéktalanul le kell bontani Európa-szerte is az új tagok polgáraival szemben, a szabad munkavállalás útjába épített akadályokat. Ön, miniszterelnök úr, azt mondta, hogy a közös agrárpolitika nem tartható a mai formájában. De ne felejtse el, hogy az új tagországok gazdái ma még csak a töredékét kapják annak, mint a régiek. A feladat: reformáljuk meg a közös agrárpolitikát, de kezdjük a belső egyenlőtlenség felszámolásával, kapja meg a lengyel, magyar, az észt paraszt is azt a támogatást, ami az osztrák, francia vagy brit társuknak jár.

Miniszterelnök úr és Barroso elnök úr is arról beszélt, hogy versenyképessé kell tenni Európát. Ma úgy látjuk mégis, mintha Európa megijedt volna a versenytől. Az európai gazdaság legnagyobb részét kitevő szolgáltatások eddig csak papíron meglevő szabadsága előtti akadályok lebontása a feladat. Fogadjuk el a szolgáltatási irányelvet! Ön, miniszterelnök úr, Európa megújításáról beszélt, nagyon helyesen. Kezdjük a megújítást együtt, mind a huszonöten, igazságtalan mesterséges és belső megkülönböztetések nélkül.

  President. That concludes the debate.