Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

Il-Ħamis, 23 ta' Ġunju 2005 - Brussell

1. Ftuħ tas-seduta

PRESIDENCIA DEL SR. BORRELL FONTELLES
Presidente

(Se abre la sesión a las 9.05 horas)

2. Merħba

  El Presidente. Señoras y señores diputados, antes de dar la palabra al Primer Ministro del Reino Unido, me complace dar la bienvenida a una delegación de miembros de la Asamblea Nacional de la República de Corea, encabezada por el Excelentísimo Señor Lee Sang Deuk, que ha acudido a Bruselas para participar en la octava Reunión interparlamentaria Parlamento Europeo-Corea.

Con esta reunión el Parlamento Europeo y el Parlamento Coreano celebran su primer encuentro en lo que constituye para ambos una nueva legislatura. Quiero poner de relieve que nuestro diálogo es ahora ya plenamente político y ha tratado con el paso de los años un amplio abanico de asuntos que van desde la seguridad regional e internacional hasta las preocupaciones diarias de los ciudadanos, paralelamente al incremento del papel activo en el ámbito internacional que han tenido tanto la Unión Europea como Corea del Sur.

Señor Presidente, permítame que nos congratulemos con esta visita y con la creciente cooperación con la República de Corea, y les deseamos una feliz estancia en Bruselas.

3. Dokumenti mressqa: ara l-Minuti

4. Programm ta' Attività tal-Presidenza Brittanika

  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.

5. Merħba

  President. Colleagues, it gives me great pleasure to welcome members of a delegation from the Parliament of Kuwait – led by Dr Nasser Jasem al-Sane – who have taken their seats in the distinguished visitors’ gallery as part of their first visit to the European Parliament. The delegation’s visit is particularly timely, coming just one month after the Kuwaiti Parliament endorsed the request made by the Emir, Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah, to amend the electoral law in order to reflect more closely the Constitution by allowing women to secure the right to vote and to stand for election in national and local elections.

(Applause)

We in this Parliament welcome this historic vote and encourage the women of Kuwait to exercise their newly acquired rights in the general election scheduled for 2007.

6. Programm ta' Attività tal-Presidenza Brittannika (kontinwazzjoni)

  President. We now continue with the debate on the programme of the British presidency.

  Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (PSE). – Mr President, one could accuse Prime Minister Tony Blair of many things, but not of paying lip service. Mr Blair, you are a courageous and strong leader. You have stated your convictions and the direction in which you wish to go. I thank you for that.

Let me say that today’s debate should not be about whispering in the corner or blaming somebody else for what happened yesterday, but should focus upon what you said. One thing is worrying the citizens of Europe, and that is the future: the lack of jobs and answers to globalisation. The responsibility of Parliament is to support a UK presidency which said the following, ‘We have to create changes to equip people to live during permanent changes’. The question is not whether there will be changes but what kind of changes. The question is not whether there will be reforms, but what type of reforms.

Mr Blair, in my short amount of time today I will focus on that question. Your principal task internally in Europe in the next six months will be to create more jobs through higher growth and the right reforms. It is about doing these things simultaneously. I know that even if you succeed – which I hope you will – in achieving this new European budget, we know and you know that most of the effort to create more jobs takes place in the nation state. It is also the responsibility of the nation states to really focus on a modernisation process and to unite a new social progress with a new competitiveness and growth.

Today, as your first task internally, I urge you to formulate a new deal among governments to invest in the Lisbon process in the next four years, not because it is a requirement of the Treaty, but as an obligation to the people. If you can achieve a new agreement during your presidency on goal-oriented investments to increase growth internally, combined with some consensus on the social model, then you are in the driving seat and I sincerely hope you will stay there.

(Applause)

  Lena Ek (ALDE). – Mr President, the Lisbon strategy is a very important tool to enhance European economic growth and when we negotiated this in the Parliament we were very clear that we wanted sustainable economic growth. Despite this, in your speech, Mr Blair, you hardly mentioned environmental questions at all. Environmentally driven industry has two and a half times the growth rate that is normal in European industry. Environmentally driven questions are also key to economic growth, so I want a message on this from you, Mr Blair.

Secondly, I am negotiating the chemical directive as rapporteur. Right now that is one of the very few things that can deliver a result to the European citizen during your presidency. Therefore it would be very nice to also have a clear result on this to ensure that the future is not blurred but Blaired.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Prime Minister, it seems that French and Dutch voters have startled you into some attitude changes. Now all of a sudden you say that the EU needs modernisation and yet not so long ago you told us that this was what the Constitution was for. Now you find the agriculture funding package that you signed up to not so long ago unacceptable. Now you cannot sign up to a budget compromise, because it is not the right deal for Britain. Yet your own government has repeatedly signed up to disastrous deals, particularly for Scotland, such as the reform of the common fisheries policy.

Speaking of disasters for Scotland, your own line on the EU budget limit would end structural funding in Scotland at a cost of a billion pounds. While it is true to say that the EU institutions need reform, it is also true that euroscepticism has grown in Scotland because you have continued the traditional UK Government practice of selling out Scotland's interests in cobbled together compromises. The best form of constitutional reform for Scotland would be to represent ourselves in the European Union as an independent Member State.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący, Panie i Panowie; Dziś mamy w naszym Parlamencie ważny dzień, ważne przemówienie polityka, który nie mówi drętwą, eurobiurokratyczną mową, takim eurospeek'iem. Można się z nim nie zgodzić, ale warto go słuchać. Pamiętam doskonale, Panie Premierze, pańskie wystąpienie sprzed czterech lat w Warszawie, na spotkaniu z premierami Polski, Czech, Węgier i Słowacji. Mówił Pan wtedy słusznie o Europie narodów, wizji Europy narodów przeciwstawianej idei Europy ponadnarodowej, idei która się dobrze sprawdza na papierze lub w głowach twórców tej idei. Dziś potraktował Pan bardzo poważnie Parlament Europejski mówiąc o tym, co w naszej rzeczywistości jest mitem, co jest wyzwaniem, a co jest pewną propagandą. Ale w jednym się nie mogę zgodzić z Panem...

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissionspräsident, Herr Premierminister! Ich halte es für richtig – und das ist die Botschaft der europäischen Bevölkerung, dass wir Reformen brauchen. Wir müssen die Europäer mit mehr Wettbewerbsfähigkeit versehen, Begrenzungen machen, Bürokratisierung und Überregulierung vermeiden. Aber ich möchte auch sagen, dass dieses wirtschaftspolitisch orientierte Projekt nicht im Gegensatz zu einem Verfassungsvertrag steht. Ein solcher ist vielmehr die Bedingung für sein Gelingen, indem er bessere Entscheidungsstrukturen schafft, indem er Transparenz herstellt und die Bürger stärker beteiligt. Insbesondere bietet er auch bessere Möglichkeiten für die Rolle Europas in der Welt. Wir haben das gestern bei der Irak-Konferenz wieder gesehen.

Ich meine, dass wir aus diesem Grund deutlich machen müssen, dass zwischen einer besseren Wirtschaft in Europa und einem politischem Projekt kein Widerspruch besteht, sondern dass Letzteres geradezu Bedingung für Ersteres ist, weil das politische Projekt auch die nötige Solidarität erzeugt, um in wirtschaftlichen Fragen zu kooperieren. Deswegen müssen wir ein politisches Projekt und einen Markt haben und nicht nur ein politisches Projekt oder nur eine Freihandelszone. Markt bedeutet, dass wir moderne Rahmenbedingungen brauchen, dass dazu auch Soziales, Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutz gehören. Dies scheinen mir wichtige Fragen zu sein, die wir auch positiv beantworten wollen. Wir wollen eine soziale Marktwirtschaft und keinen Manchesterliberalismus – das sollten wir uns ständig vor Augen führen.

Herr Premierminister, ein solches funktionsfähiges Europa bedeutet aber auch, dass es sich seine Grenzen zieht. Die Begrenzung im Bereich der Erweiterung muss auch im Lichte des gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkts gesehen werden, damit keine Überdehnung stattfindet. Eine Überdehnung stünde im Gegensatz zu Handlungsfähigkeit und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Ich lade Sie also ein, diesen bestehenden Widerspruch aufzulösen. Ich bin froh, dass Sie sagen, dass Sie das politische Projekt voranbringen wollen. Ich möchte Sie in diesem Rahmen aber dazu einladen, diesem Europa insgesamt beizutreten. Der Euro ist ein Teil der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union, und ich würde mich freuen, wenn Großbritannien dem Euro und auch Schengen beitreten würde, um seine Mitgliedschaft in der Europäischen Union voll auszuüben.

  Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il mancato accordo sulle prospettive finanziarie è tanto più grave perché è stato il primo atto del Consiglio dopo le difficoltà incontrate dalla ratifica del trattato.

Evocare nuove politiche per l'Europa, con meno risorse, non costituisce una soluzione, così come non lo è indicare riforme, anche giuste, che intaccano privilegi altrui, senza mettere in seria discussione i propri. Il recente Consiglio europeo ha assunto molte decisioni sulla politica estera per far fronte ad impegni esterni improrogabili. Mi auguro che ciò sia il segno della volontà di non rinunciare ad un'effettiva politica ed alla prospettiva di un vero Ministro degli esteri europeo.

Per quel che riguarda l'Iraq è importante essere arrivati alla Conferenza di Bruxelles, tuttavia la situazione sul campo rimane grave e fuori controllo. Il Regno Unito ha sostenuto l'intervento militare, indicandolo come strumento per risolvere l'intera crisi mediorientale. Ciò dà ancora più responsabilità al Suo semestre rispetto alla soluzione definitiva del conflitto Israelo-Palestinese. La vicenda irachena conferma poi che è impensabile il ruolo internazionale dell'Europa fuori da un contesto multilaterale ed è stato perciò un grave errore, ieri, dividere l'Europa, ed oggi, la rinuncia da parte di alcuni Stati membri all'obiettivo di un seggio europeo nel futuro Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.

Lei ha detto di non volere un'area di libero scambio, questo è importante. Tuttavia il rischio di scivolare verso questa prospettiva è nelle cose: se si arresterà l'integrazione politica, se non sapremo costruire nuovi obiettivi e se non daremo istituzioni capaci di attuarli. Ciò è ancora più necessario nell'ottica, che mi pare Lei Presidente condivida, di un'Europa grande con non si chiuda ai Balcani e alla Turchia.

  Jean-Louis Bourlanges (ALDE). – Quel gâchis, Monsieur le Premier ministre! Vous étiez, il y a peu, entouré de l'estime et du respect général et vous avez réussi le tour de force de décevoir avant même de commencer. Il est en effet profondément choquant sur le plan moral que le Royaume-Uni veuille se soustraire à l'effort de solidarité consenti par tous en faveur des pays de l'élargissement. Il est économiquement mensonger de prétendre que les agriculteurs sucent le sang des Européens alors que l'ensemble des dépenses agricoles ne dépasse pas 1,3 % de l'ensemble des dépenses publiques de l'Union européenne. Il est juridiquement et politiquement aberrant que vous arriviez à un système dans lequel vous voulez faire dépendre la réforme d'une politique commune du choix d'un arbitrage budgétaire. C'est à la demande du Royaume-Uni que la Cour de justice a dit que c'était la base juridique qui devait commander la dépense et non la dépense la base juridique. Enfin, permettez-moi de dire à un Français vaincu et malheureux d'avoir perdu son référendum que je ne trouve ni magnanime, ni très fair-play que vous choisissiez le moment où mon pays a un genou en terre pour porter une offensive contre lui. Vous savez, vous n'aurez pas trop de six mois pour réparer vos dégâts de trois jours.

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – Vítám, že poraženecké slovo krize vystřídala odvážná slova jako příležitost, modernizace a změna, a že Tony Blaire je připraven řešit hluboký rozpor mezi arogancí unijních politiků, reálným životem občanů a globálním vývojem světové ekonomiky. Občany nezajímají sny, ale životní úroveň a to, zda budou mít práci.

Opravdové výsledky politiky Unie dokládají dva aktuální údaje za poslední rok. Zaprvé podnikatelům vzrostly náklady na pracovní sílu o 3,5 %, zadruhé občanům vzrostla cena elektřiny o 5 %, tedy rozhodně nic radostného. Věřím, že britské předsednictví přejde od velmi výstižných slov k razantním činům, které rozhýbou stagnaci Unie, dají jí nový směr a zvýší její kredit ve světě.

Na závěr jedna poznámka. V tomto sále mnoho zaznělo o nutnosti přiblížit se občanům, navrhuji tedy začít dnes u sebe a právě v tomto sále. Odmítněme jednotný statut, který zaručuje poslancům z celé pětadvacítky ničím neopodstatněné stejně vysoký plat a výhody v důchodovém zabezpečení. Považuji to za výsměch těm, kteří nás sem poslali, nikoliv za jejich vůli.

  Jaime Mayor Oreja (PPE-DE). – Señor Primer Ministro, en primer lugar quiero decir que yo me alegro de lo que parecía molestar al portavoz socialista: de que muchos diputados del Grupo del PPE-DE hayamos aplaudido su intervención en la mañana de hoy.

Somos muchos los que creemos que no solamente debemos abrir un período de reflexión en la Unión Europea, sino que debemos abrir un período que usted ha llamado de «renovación» y otros podemos llamar de «rectificación», y no podemos dejar la renovación o la rectificación en manos de los que no creen en la Unión Europea. La diferencia es que la rectificación debe ser profunda y debe ser ordenada, guiada por nuestro convencimiento de la necesidad de la Unión y sin caer en la precipitación. Su problema es que sólo tiene seis meses en la Presidencia para hacer una rectificación profunda y ordenada.

La precipitación al final siempre consiste en echar la culpa de los problemas de la Unión a los demás, a las demás Instituciones, y siempre trata de llevarnos a confirmar nuestra propia posición, y eso es lo contrario del espíritu europeo. Se precisa una rectificación ordenada. Cada Institución debe ser capaz de diagnosticar, de programar, lo que la aleja de los europeos. Lo tiene que hacer el Consejo, lo tiene que hacer la Comisión y lo tiene que hacer este Parlamento. Y cada Institución debe centrarse muy especialmente en lo que hoy la aleja de los europeos.

No son los ejes de una nación los que van a liderar el futuro de la recuperación de la confianza de los europeos; van a ser unos pocos proyectos políticos europeos, pocos, pero relevantes. La Unión Europea no puede seguir hablando de todo y no diciendo nada. Tenemos que ser capaces de encontrar esos problemas políticos asociados a problemas reales de seguridad, de crecimiento económico y de cohesión de los europeos.

Termino diciendo que el progreso paso a paso fue la clave de aquellos europeos ejemplares que diseñaron la Unión; hoy no hay que dar un paso atrás, hay que levantar la mirada, huir de la rutina, que es la peor de las burocracias en la Unión Europea.

  Bernard Poignant (PSE). – Monsieur le Président, je suis français, mais je viens de Bretagne, la petite, et je viens même de Cornouaille, comme la Duchesse Camilla. Je suis donc un peu pardonné, Monsieur le Président. On vous a parlé de la guerre de Cent ans. On vous a même dit de faire le Tour de France, même si c'est un Américain qui va le gagner. Moi je vous dis: "Faites de votre présidence Austerlitz et pas Waterloo." Quand l'Europe connaît une crise, elle parle toujours de ses valeurs. La grande crise, c'est la guerre. La grande valeur, c'était le pardon. Le pardon a fait les traités des années cinquante.

L'autre crise de l'an 2000, c'est la grande Europe. C'est l'après-guerre froide. La grande valeur, c'est le partage. Et si l'on veut parler aux populations du chèque britannique, du chèque ceci, d'accord. Parlons des valeurs et ensuite déclinons les politiques.

C'est vrai pour l'emploi, notamment pour ceux qui n'en ont pas, sans casser le droit du travail. Le partage est vrai pour ceux qui viennent de rentrer dans l'Union et ceux qui vont y entrer. Ils ont besoin de notre concours. C'est vrai pour les pays du Sud. Bravo pour l'annulation de la dette des pays pauvres. C'est vrai pour la politique agricole commune, car, moi, je ne suis pas très content qu'à peu près un quart des agriculteurs français empochent trois quarts de l'argent européen. Si vous pouviez mettre de l'ordre là-dedans, je vous dis "Chapeau". Il n'y a pas que le duc de Bedford; nous aussi, on a nos petits ducs, en l'occurrence.

Or, vous ne ferez pas tout ça avec 1 %; c'est trop court. Le compte bancaire n'est pas assez approvisionné. Je vous suggère donc de faire le voyage de Paris. Allez voir Chirac. Payez-lui une tête de veau. Vous verrez, vous allez vous réconcilier. Mais l'un et l'autre, et avec quatre autres partenaires, mettez un peu plus, sinon, vous verrez, c'est le "chacun pour soi" qui reprendra du poil de la bête. Et ça, il ne le faut pas.

PRESIDENCIA DEL SR. BORRELL FONTELLES
Presidente

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Premierminister Blair! Wir hatten vor zwei Wochen die Gelegenheit, Sie persönlich in London zu besuchen und Ihre Vorstellung zur Ratspräsidentschaft zu erkunden. Sie haben uns damals klar gemacht, dass es Ihnen um die Sache geht. Es geht Ihnen um die Sache, und es geht nicht darum, eine Situation auszunutzen. Wohl steht fest, dass die Säulen der EU früher Kohle, Stahl und Landwirtschaft waren, aber das ist nicht die Vision, die die Menschen antreibt. Das ist nicht das Europa, das wir uns heute vorstellen. Sie setzen jetzt den richtigen Akzent in Richtung Forschung, Innovation, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Europäer. Diese Zeit des alten narrative, die alte Vision ist vorbei, wir brauchen eine neue.

Jacques Chirac und Kanzler Schröder haben gesagt, sie schämen sich für Ihr Verhalten. Lieber Tony Blair, ich muss Ihnen sagen, ich schäme mich für das Verhalten meines Bundeskanzlers auf diesem Gipfel, aber auch für das Verhalten von Jacques Chirac, weil beide nicht sehen, dass wir eine neue Vision brauchen, so dass wir jetzt eigentlich Ihrem Weg folgen müssen. Sie haben den richtigen Moment ergriffen und ich möchte Ihnen gratulieren und Ihnen sagen: Weiter so!

  Jacek Emil Saryusz-Wolski (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Prime Minister, we had a dream, a dream of a free and generous Europe of solidarity. It was a dream for 50 years. We are disillusioned by the present disputes. We in the Parliament have succeeded in coming up with a budget in which we have reconciled national sensitivities with the general European interest. Our budget may not be ideal but it is a good compromise.

The problem is not linked specifically to any particular government – French, British or German or anybody else. It is linked to the wrong philosophy pursued in the budgetary negotiations by the one per cent club. It is simply impossible to have more Europe for less money. The Union should resist the temptation to make enlargement a scapegoat for or victim of all the problems facing the European Union, be it of constitutional or budgetary nature. It is the other way around: the new Member States provide dynamics and stimulus for reforms, which are indispensable anyhow. These countries are idealistic about Europe to the point of self-sacrifice. The Union needs more resources if we are to realise our ambitions. If we are to build a political and economic Union we have to move beyond the accountant-type approach, pared down to thinking in net contributor terms. We, the countries of central and eastern Europe, know very well what the price of our European dream was.

We lived through decades of hardship, violation of human rights, paying the prices of life, jail, gulag and deprivation. We are coming from the cold of Yalta, but the climate in Europe is becoming chilly and egoistic. How much is Europe worth? Are there two ways of fixing the price for Europe? On the one hand, is it one per cent of GNI, is it the rebate, or is it direct payments? Or on the other hand, is it not the price we paid, the price of commitment to European values and a community of destiny? But we place a higher value on Europe. Let us not put it at risk. The price we paid for it is not convertible into euro. One year after joining the EU, how do we explain to our citizens the gap between promise and performance? How do we put more soul into the European project?

  Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE). – Señor Presidente, señor Primer Ministro, señor Presidente de la Comisión, Señorías, saludo, señor Primer Ministro, su pasión por el debate. Pero no estamos empezando el debate hoy; estamos —por decirlo en términos deportivos— a mitad de partido y hay que ganar el segundo tiempo.

Con respecto a la Constitución, hay que decir que más de la mitad de los ciudadanos europeos y el 60 % de la zona euro la han aprobado y yo no alcanzo a comprender por qué el voto positivo del 75 % de los ciudadanos españoles vale menos que el voto negativo del 66 % de los holandeses. Matemáticamente, eso no se tiene en pie.

Usted es un hombre de principios: ha aprobado un bill of rights en Gran Bretaña y levantó el veto de la Carta Social. ¿Qué va a hacer con la Constitución? ¿Va a actuar o va a esperar —wait and see—? Ésta es una pregunta que me gustaría que contestara.

En cuanto al euro, usted ha tenido la elegancia de no intervenir. Estará de acuerdo conmigo en que, cuando se habla del modelo social, también hay que hablar del modelo económico. ¿Qué va a hacer usted con el euro?

Y, en relación con las perspectivas financieras, y dado que estamos en un Parlamento, le informo de que la Constitución da a este Parlamento la posibilidad de codecidir sobre los gastos agrícolas, cosa que no podemos hacer en este momento. Además, si somos un Parlamento que se respeta, hay que aplicar el principio "no taxation without representation" y no tenemos que ir más allá de la planificación soviética; perspectivas financieras a siete años es ir más allá que el Gosplan, y eso es insostenible. Tiene razón el Presidente de la Comisión cuando dice que hay que optar por una solución transitoria hasta 2009. Asimismo, tenemos que ir a las elecciones defendiendo nuestras opciones.

Ésa es la manera de actuar democráticamente y yo espero que usted ayude activamente a que consolidemos una Europa más democrática y más transparente.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Mr President, Prime Minister, regrettably it becomes clearer day by day that the present Constitutional Treaty will not be brought into force. The current text must be seen as a good first draft and the famous period of reflection should be exploited to prepare for a renegotiation through a fresh convention with a new mandate. The renegotiation should focus on Part III and should carry through the modernisation and reform of the EU’s common economic and social policies of which you so properly speak.

  Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Primo Ministro, i francesi e gli olandesi non hanno detto "No" alla Costituzione, non hanno bocciato i valori dell'Europa, hanno però fornito un giudizio negativo sull'Europa di oggi troppo lontana dalla gente e spesso prigioniera di una burocrazia sorda alla voce dei cittadini.

Ecco perché l'Europa della politica e dei valori di cui Lei ha parlato non può fermare il suo cammino, non può rinunciare a svolgere il suo ruolo di protagonista internazionale e di portatrice di pace di fronte a qualche insuccesso.

Per raggiungere gli obiettivi per i quali stiamo lavorando servono alcuni importanti cambiamenti, significative riforme destinate a fornire risposte concrete ai popoli d'Europa, serve insomma un'Unione che non si occupi di tutto e del contrario di tutto, emanando decine e decine di incomprensibili direttive. Serve al contrario un'Unione che affronti i problemi che non possono essere, nell'era della globalizzazione, risolti dagli Stati nazionali: dalla politica estera a quella di difesa, dalle emergenze immigrazione alla lotta al terrorismo, alle sfide commerciali con la Cina. Anche nel settore dell'economia bisogna andare avanti con le riforme seguendo il processo di Lisbona: l'obiettivo è la drastica riduzione della disoccupazione attraverso il sostegno alle PMI.

Condividiamo la sua analisi, abbiamo apprezzato il suo intervento a favore di un'Europa protagonista, capace di essere al passo con i tempi e che mantenga gli impegni presi. Abbiamo un anno di tempo per approvare il bilancio, possiamo raggiungere l'obiettivo mancato la scorsa settimana, contemporaneamente non dobbiamo rinunciare agli impegni presi con i paesi che guardano con attenzione all'Unione. Bulgaria e Romania possono entrare nella nostra casa comune nel 2007, con la Turchia si può iniziare la trattativa, per avere un'Unione che guarda ad est, ma anche a sud, a sud anche verso l'Africa, un continente che aspetta dall'Europa risposte importanti con grande speranza: non possiamo tirarci indietro.

Signor Primo Ministro condividiamo l'impostazione della Sua presidenza, per questo potrà contare sulla collaborazione della delegazione italiana di Forza Italia, sulla collaborazione attiva nei prossimi mesi, convinti che la Presidenza britannica farà compiere passi in avanti all'Europa dei cittadini.

  Martine Roure (PSE). – Monsieur le Premier ministre, je tiens avant tout à exprimer le soutien déterminé de notre groupe au plan d'action contre le trafic des êtres humains. M. Juncker nous a rappelé hier que nous avions été capables d'éradiquer les esclavages et que nous devrions être capables d'éradiquer la pauvreté. Nous insistons, nous, pour que l'éradication de l'exploitation sexuelle et de la violence contre les femmes soit également une priorité absolue de l'Union européenne. Nous devons absolument éradiquer ce fléau indigne de notre société et cette dimension doit faire partie intégrante de la lutte contre l'immigration illégale. La lutte contre la criminalité organisée et le terrorisme constitue également une priorité. Nous soutenons ainsi la mise en œuvre aussi rapide que possible du mandat européen des preuves et d'équipes d'enquête commune, mais nous sommes encore prudents sur l'échange de données sensibles, y compris les données biométriques. L'équilibre fragile entre sécurité et liberté doit être préservé. Nos concitoyens veulent une Europe solidaire, protectrice et généreuse. Ayons toujours cela à l'esprit, nous répondrons ainsi à leurs attentes.

  Sajjad Karim (ALDE). – Mr President, Prime Minister, the United Kingdom’s control order regime brought into force by the forthcoming presidency, flouts the presumption of innocence and cannot reasonably be described as sitting squarely with any accepted European notions of fairness and basic human dignity. These draconian measures leave EU citizens who have never been charged with a recognisable offence, confused and disenfranchised with no knowledge of why they are under suspicion, leaving the individual under a constant fear of imprisonment for breaches of the broadest and vaguest of laws; all decided by a politician, flying in the face of the separation of powers and the rule of law.

The holders of the presidency should be setting the human rights standard for the world, yet only this month the Council of Europe’s own Commissioner for Human Rights confirmed that here we have a government which is prepared to suspend the human rights of its own citizens under Article 5 of the European Charter.

The international community is facing a defining moment in its response to terrorism and we, as Europeans, will ultimately be judged by the way we treat our citizens. Will this presidency not recognise that its actions have led to victimisation and effective isolation of a large section of its own population?

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE). – Herr talman, premiärminister Blair! Europa i dag är bättre än någonsin. Jag säger detta för att en stor del av de aktuella debatterna handlar om synen på utvidgningen. Jag tillhör dem som anser att utvidgningen med de tio nya medlemsstaterna har gjort Europa säkrare, stabilare och skapat bättre förutsättningar för fred och välstånd än någonsin tidigare. För mig är detta ett argument för att bejaka en fortsatt utvidgning och inte ett argument för att nu försöka stänga Europas gränser. En av de viktigaste uppgifterna för det nya ledarskapet i Europa blir att förankra och utveckla synen på hur Europa kan skapa ökad säkerhet och ökat välstånd genom att knyta de länder till sig som nu står inför utvidgningen.

Premiärminister Blair, jag tror att de problem som vi i dag står inför i EU hänger samman med att Europa är bättre än någonsin. Det innebär samtidigt att Europeiska unionen är en större utmaning än tidigare. Det handlar inte, som ibland sägs, om en konflikt mellan det gamla och det nya Europa eller en konflikt mellan ett frihandelseuropa och den politiska unionen. Europeiska unionen är en politisk union och måste möta sin uppgift utifrån det. Det handlar i stället om uppbrottet från det gamla EU, den gamla europeiska unionen med sex, nio, tolv eller femton medlemmar till dagens europeiska union med 25 medlemsstater. Detta kräver respekt för variation och mångfald och också en förmåga att ta tillvara den dynamik som finns i hela Europa. Det kräver en öppenhet gentemot de nya medlemsländerna. Det kräver en förmåga att finna de gemensamma nämnarna, att satsa på kunskapssamhället i stället för bidragssamhället, att satsa på de nya företagen i stället för att göra jordbruksstödet till ett hinder för den forskning och utveckling vi behöver. Jag hoppas, på de svenska moderaternas vägnar, att ni kommer att lägga grunden för det nya ledarskap som det nya Europa och den nya europeiska unionen behöver.

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – Herr talman! Jag vill tacka premiärminister Blair för ett inspirerande anförande. Jag delar uppfattningen att EU behöver förändras. Jag delar uppfattningen att EU behöver bli mer aktivt i världen. Jag delar uppfattningen att EU inte bara är ett frihandelsområde utan även en politisk union. Jag delar också synpunkterna om budgeten. Den brittiska rabatten är ålderdomlig, men precis lika ålderdomlig är jordbrukspolitiken och det vi satsar på inom jordbrukspolitiken i dag. Detta behöver också förändras. Vi behöver satsa på forskning och utveckling, kompetensutveckling med mera. Det som vi talar om under och efter viktiga möten måste omsättas i handling.

Jag delar vidare uppfattningen om det sociala Europa. Det stämmer att ni var med och införde det sociala protokollet, ni var med och införde sysselsättningsstrategin och den aktiva arbetsmarknadspolitiken i EU-samarbetet. Allt detta var bra, men vi måste gå vidare och finna en balans. Därför måste vi få ett förslag om tjänstedirektivet som balanserar tjänstehandeln, eftersom det är något vi behöver. Samtidigt behöver vi goda villkor på arbetsmarknaden, höga miljönormer och konsumenträttigheter.

Vi behöver dessutom ett arbetstidsdirektiv som tar hänsyn till just det ni sade om att kunna kombinera familjeliv och arbetsliv, så att inte den ena parten arbetar ihjäl sig och så att vi inte konkurrerar med långa arbetstider. Vi behöver ett bemanningsdirektiv, men inte för att slå undan benen för bemanningsföretagen utan för att skapa ett ramverk. Om ni klarar av att öppna för handel och öppna gränserna men samtidigt utveckla det sociala Europa, då kommer vi från den socialdemokratiska gruppens sida att stödja er.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne (ALDE). – Mr President, I welcome the Prime Minister’s historic speech. It bodes well for a highly successful UK presidency.

During his time in office, will he build on the already agreed enlargement programme? Will he give special emphasis to ensuring a timely entry into negotiations for Turkey, since so much hangs in the balance in early October on reforms in Turkey? Will he support Romania in the final stretch of what has been a major endurance test, leading to early entry in January 2007, and for Bulgaria too? Will he build on the success of yesterday’s unique conference on Iraq, which demonstrated the profound endurance of British policies? Will he build on that success with the elected Iraqi Government and parliamentary assembly to continue to foster the growth of democracy in the Arabian Peninsula, the Persian Gulf and the Euro-Mediterranean region?

  Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Premierminister, Herr Kommissionspräsident, verehrte Kollegen! Dem scheidenden Ratspräsidenten Jean-Claude Juncker wurden gestern stehende Ovationen bereitet. Sie, Herr Premierminister Blair, erhielten im selben Haus einen überzeugenden Antrittsapplaus. Dies ist ein großer Vertrauensvorschuss dieses Hauses, das die wahre, weil einzige direkte Bürgervertretung dieser Europäischen Union ist. Und in Zeiten der Identitätskrise dieser Europäischen Union – Premierminister Blair, Sie sprachen selbst von einer Führungskrise – ist es unerlässlich, sich darauf zu besinnen, dass dieses Europa nach fünfzigjähriger Erfolgsgeschichte den Bottom-Up-Approach braucht und nicht so sehr den Bottom-Down-Approach. Das heißt, wir müssen die Bürger mitnehmen, und nicht entfremden. Und wer sollte dazu berufener sein als direkt gewählte Mandatare? An die Adresse der Kommission gerichtet: Es geht nicht nur darum, dass Europa bessere Regulierungen braucht. Es braucht vor allem weniger Regulierung. Dies sage ich allerdings auch den Parlamentariern auf der linken Seite des Spektrums im Europäischen Parlament.

Herr Premierminister, Ihre Rede war in vielen Punkten überzeugend, vor allem bezüglich des Grundsatzes, dass, wer Gutes bewahren will, manches verändern muss. Hier teilen Sie ein Prinzip, das auch der Ihnen nachfolgende Ratsvorsitz, Bundeskanzler Schüssel, zu seinem Motto erhoben hat. Ich begrüße auch, dass Sie den Zielkonflikt der Europäischen Union nach der Verfassungskrise entschärfen wollen. Ihre Präsidentschaft wird allerdings nicht nur an ihren Absichten gemessen werden, sondern vor allem an ihren Taten.

Gestatten Sie mir daher, dass ich Sie nach den konkreten Schritten frage, die Sie unternehmen wollen, um die Finanzielle Vorausschau unter Ihrem Vorsitz zu einem Abschluss zu bringen. Zweitens, welche Schritte gedenken Sie zu unternehmen, um den Verfassungsprozess am Leben zu halten, und drittens, welche Antworten geben Sie den Bürgern, die sich vor einer Überdehnung der Europäischen Union fürchten? Halten Sie es nicht für einen gewissen Widerspruch, dass Sie in einem Atemzug die Türkei und Kroatien nennen? Viele Bürger haben Bedenken gegen die große Türkei, nicht aber gegen das kleine Kroatien.

  Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez (PSE). – Señor Presidente, la presentación del Primer Ministro Blair ha sido más una serie de interesantes reflexiones que de compromisos precisos para el semestre de su Presidencia. A la hora de valorar sus intenciones en el terreno que me concierne como portavoz del Grupo Socialista en temas de desarrollo y acción humanitaria, tengo que referirme a la orientación anunciada por su Gobierno en esta materia.

Expresaré nuestra satisfacción por que entre las principales prioridades de la Presidencia británica esté incrementar la acción y los recursos de la Unión Europea en el campo de la solidaridad con el mundo en desarrollo: la realización de los Objetivos del Milenio —se ratificarán como meta prioritaria—, con la erradicación de la pobreza como principal preocupación y África en primera línea de atención, porque África está en la primera línea del problema.

Me gustaría hacer dos comentarios más. El primero, para reconocer que la Presidencia luxemburguesa ha colocado muy alto el listón con lo decidido en el Consejo de Desarrollo del pasado mayo; ojalá entienda la Presidencia británica que esas decisiones son una buena rampa de lanzamiento para impulsar su propia acción este semestre.

Mi segundo comentario es para subrayar y alegrarme de que las prioridades de la Presidencia británica en el campo al que me vengo refiriendo coincidan con las de mi Grupo Socialista. Esto es natural, no sólo por la coincidencia de valores, sino porque hace meses que mantenemos una intensa cooperación con sus responsables en el gabinete, los amigos Hillary Ben y Garret Thomas. Ojalá sepa buscar la Presidencia británica, este semestre y en este ámbito, una estrecha relación con el Parlamento Europeo; seguro que así avanzaremos más y mejor.

  Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE). – Mr President, Prime Minister, excellent goals, very good speech, you have my support. I have got one minute so I want to make one point. In the French referendum President Chirac got 45.3 per cent of votes in favour. In the UK General Election last month, you got 35.3 per cent, which is 10 per cent less than Jacques Chirac got. You are only there because of a distortion in the UK electoral system; you had a manifesto commitment in 1997, but it seems to have been forgotten.

The point is that neither of you have majority support in your own countries. After eight years of leadership of my country, the hostility and ignorance about Europe in the UK is shocking and terrible and needs to be corrected. Please will you start to make positive speeches and explain … I am sorry to see you are not even listening! Will you start to make speeches explaining the European Union in the country you and I know best?

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I welcome Mr Blair and thank him for staying for the entire debate here this morning.

Last weekend’s political sparring and lack of conclusion to the summit was not worthy either of you, Mr Blair, nor of Mr Chirac. Where was the Tony Blair of the Good Friday Agreement, a man of understanding and goodwill, who could bring both sides of an intractable conflict to the table; a man who showed singular courage on the Iraq question, regardless of our views of the right or wrong. It may well be good for you and for your image at home, Mr Blair, to stand up to the French and to play to the residual, historic emotion that finds resonance in British chemistry. But remember the 100 Years War in the Middle Ages: the British came out of it with much less than they went in. Fontainebleau was Margaret Thatcher’s Agincourt, when she walked away with the British rebate, and now, 20 years on, that rebate is worth a farthing in the pound of British GDP. Yet, Mr Blair, you are prepared to sacrifice Europe’s budget agreement and the European project to continue being the populist servant of Mr Murdoch and his newspapers.

If Kohl or Mitterrand had been at the table last weekend, we would have had a conclusion. We are politically rudderless in Europe and the real crisis in Europe is the lack of political leadership.

Mr Blair, you were right to say that we must modernise Europe’s social model on the basis of a strong economy and not at the expense of it. It is true that we urgently need to peel back regulation and that China is investing threefold in research and innovation. However, splitting hairs over decimal points on the budget last weekend has put Europe’s ambitious Seventh Framework Programme for doubling funding on research on ice. So much for the Lisbon mission.

What about the common agricultural policy, Mr Blair? What exactly is your intention in relation to that? Do you understand the income crisis that exists among the vast majority of our farmers across the Europe of 25? Have you forgotten the unanimous agreement on radical reform of the CAP that you personally endorsed and your government signed up to only 18 months ago?

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the EU is in crisis in terms of direction and legitimacy, and Mr Blair is now under challenge to fill the leadership vacuum, with Mr Chirac and Mr Schröder weakened domestically and probably on their way out.

The UK is right to question the entire EU budget architecture based on a distorted, wasteful common agricultural policy, which harms developing world farmers. Our rebate will never be given up until the CAP is radically reformed, with the funds freed up, used to address modern priorities like research and development, combating climate change and external action funding to stabilise the Western Balkans, help Eastern European countries like Ukraine and fledgling democracies in the Middle East such as Iraq. This is happening at a time when the US is anxious to mend fences with the EU and needs our help.

As a priority, I hope that Britain will put the roadmap for Arab-Israeli peace back on the agenda and combat nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea. I support EU enlargement with a wider, looser flexible Europe. I welcome the proverbial Polish plumber and recognise that the new countries are driving the economic reformist agenda.

We are now committed to Romania and Bulgaria. As much as I support Ukraine’s EU aspirations, we have not carried Europe’s public with us on enlargement. I hope the UK will emphasise human rights violations in brutal regimes such as Burma and Zimbabwe. As a Commonwealth country, we have a very special influence on these countries in Africa.

At the summit meeting with Russia, it will need reminding of its obligations in Chechnya and must be made to understand that it must respect the sovereignty of its former satellites such as Ukraine. In the case of Moldova and Georgia, it should be encouraged to withdraw its troops.

Mr Blair, you might also might want to use some of your goodwill with Turkey to resolve the Armenia embargo and border issue. Lastly, we must maintain the arms embargo on China, with its lamentable human rights record and threats to Taiwan. Certainly, building a multi-polar world with China and the EU as a counterweight to the US should play no part in this issue.

  Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE). – Meine Herren Präsidenten, Herr Premierminister! Die Staats- und Regierungschefs der Europäischen Union haben uns eine Periode des Nachdenkens verschrieben, und Sie Herr Premierminister, nehmen auch daran teil, indem Sie das Referendum in Großbritannien verschoben haben. Bei den Referenden in Frankreich und in den Niederlanden hat die Frage der Erweiterung in der Diskussion eine ganz besondere Rolle gespielt. Ich weiß das aus eigenem Erleben. Darum bin ich der Auffassung, dass auch die Frage der Erweiterung in diese Reflexion einbezogen werden muss, die jetzt stattfindet. Wir haben hier eine neue Situation. Wir hatten den Vertrag von Nizza. Danach haben wir festgestellt, dass dieser nicht ausreicht, um bei 25 oder 28 Mitgliedstaaten zu funktionieren. Wir haben den Konvent einberufen. Wir haben deswegen einen Verfassungsentwurf erarbeitet, den Sie unterstützen, Herr Premierminister. Aber wir wissen auch, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht sehr groß ist, dass dieser Verfassungsentwurf in seiner jetzigen Form, das Licht des Tages erblicken wird. Darum stehen wir vor einer neuen Situation. Und da hat ein viertes Kriterium für den Beitritt eine ganz besondere Bedeutung, nämlich das Kriterium, das in Kopenhagen beschlossen wurde, und das besagt, dass auch geprüft werden muss, ob die Union selbst dazu in der Lage ist, weitere Beitritte zu verkraften.

Wenn wir keine Verfassung haben, wenn wir auch keine finanzielle Regelung haben, dann müssen wir uns sehr ernsthaft fragen, ob es tatsächlich vernünftig ist, am 4. Oktober die Verhandlungen mit der Türkei über ihren Beitritt aufzunehmen. Wir müssen uns fragen, ob wir tatsächlich erweiterungsfähig sind. Diese Frage müssen wir der Europäischen Union selbst stellen. Ich und viele meiner Freunde sind der Auffassung, dass diese Frage ganz klar mit Nein beantwortet werden muss.

  Νικόλαος Βακάλης (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ ο λόγος σας υπήρξε εμπνευσμένος και εύχομαι το ίδιο να είναι και οι ευρωπαϊκές σας δράσεις. Όμως, εγώ οφείλω να διαπιστώσω ότι η Ένωση μπήκε σε μια περίοδο κρίσης, κρίσης αξιοπιστίας, και εξηγώ γιατί:

- Τον Μάρτιο του 2000, το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο συμφώνησε τη στρατηγική της Λισσαβόνας. Στην αναθεώρηση του περασμένου Μαρτίου αποφασίστηκε να δοθεί περισσότερη έμφαση στην έρευνα και την καινοτομία.

- Τον Οκτώβριο του 2002 στις Βρυξέλλες, το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο συμφώνησε για τη γεωργία το χρηματοδοτικό πλαίσιο 2007-2013.

- Τον Απρίλιο του 2003 στην Αθήνα, όλοι οι αρχηγοί κρατών συμφώνησαν και προσυπέγραψαν τη διεύρυνση. Και ερχόμαστε στο σήμερα.

Στρατηγική της Λισσαβόνας: η πρόταση του Συμβουλίου για τα δημοσιονομικά στην πραγματικότητα την ακυρώνει.

Γεωργία: κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, ο συμβιβασμός για τη γεωργία τίθεται υπό αμφισβήτηση από εσάς τον ίδιο.

Διεύρυνση: καλωσορίζετε τα 10 νέα κράτη μέλη, όμως με λιγότερα χρήματα. Σε αντίθεση η ευρωβουλή, υπερψηφίζοντας την έκθεση BÖGE, έδειξε ότι είναι συνεπής προς αυτά που πρεσβεύει.

Κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, συμμερίζομαι τις απόψεις σας για την αναγκαιότητα των μεταρρυθμίσεων εκείνων που θα μας καταστήσουν ανταγωνιστικότερους στο διεθνές περιβάλλον αλλά οφείλουμε να συνθέσουμε το δίκαιο αυτής της θέσης με σεβασμό στα συμφωνηθέντα. Και ερωτώ:

- Πρώτον, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη ότι ο συμβιβασμός για τα κονδύλια της γεωργίας επετεύχθη μετά από αμοιβαίες αλλά και επώδυνες υποχωρήσεις, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη ότι η βασική αρχή του διεθνούς δικαίου είναι η αρχή 'pacta sunt servanta', λαμβάνοντας τέλος υπόψη ότι σήμερα ένας νέος συμβιβασμός είναι αδύνατον να επιτευχθεί με 25 κράτη μέλη και με το υπάρχον θεσμικό πλαίσιο, κρίνετε σκόπιμο να εξαντλήσουμε το θέμα αυτό;

- Δεύτερον, με ποιο προϋπολογισμό σκοπεύετε ..........

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή)

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – Señor Presidente, del discurso del señor Primer Ministro esta mañana, me ha interesado mucho la referencia que ha hecho a la Europa de los valores. Y, junto a esa visión legítima, hay otra visión complementaria de Europa (me gustaría que el señor Blair se pusiera los cascos), hay otra Europa legítima y complementaria de la anterior, que es la Europa de lo tangible, la Europa de lo contante y sonante, la Europa del saldo neto y del beneficiario neto y la Europa del saldo británico.

Celebro mucho que usted considere que en Europa ya no nos definimos solamente como los consumidores de un gran mercado, sino como los ciudadanos de la Unión, ya que hay un salto social cualitativo que va de la noción de consumidor a la de ciudadano y de la noción de un mercado común a un proyecto de unión política.

Es evidente que hace falta un liderazgo para impulsar el proyecto en la buena dirección, para acercar y aproximar Europa a los ciudadanos, para recuperar la senda del crecimiento sostenido y de la creación de empleo y para que Europa pese en la escena internacional con arreglo a su peso económico, comercial, financiero e industrial.

Europa, señor Primer Ministro, no es el problema, es la solución. Y hace falta más Europa y no menos Europa. Y lo que es importante es pasar de las palabras a los hechos. Señor Presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, es importante pasar de las palabras a los hechos y dejarnos de manifestaciones puramente retóricas, porque usted ha firmado una carta reduciendo las ambiciones y los medios presupuestarios de la Unión Europea. ¿O piensa usted, señor Presidente en ejercicio, que para duplicar los fondos de Africa se va a poder atender esta prioridad con menos recursos? ¿O piensa usted que se va a poder atender la prioridad de hacer las reformas económicas necesarias con menos recursos? ¿O piensa usted que se van a poder afrontar los retos y desafíos que tiene la Unión Europea con menos recursos?

Señor Presidente, le deseo suerte para que la Presidencia británica aúne voluntades y movilice consensos para que la Unión Europea avance, pero sólo podrá hacerlo desde dos perspectivas o desde dos premisas: primero, poner las cifras al servicio de los ideales, por un lado; y segundo, señor Presidente, que cada uno busque su ventaja en la ventaja común.

(Aplausos)

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – Courage, Monsieur le Premier ministre, je suis la dernière, j'espère que je ne serais pas la moindre. Après une présidence luxembourgeoise assurée avec honneur par Jean-Claude Juncker, vous prenez la présidence à un moment extrêmement délicat pour l'Europe. À l'heure où le projet de Constitution européenne basé sur un rééquilibrage minutieux entre le politique et l'économique semble mort-né, je souhaite malgré tout que nous n'enterrions pas trop son contenu.

Le financement de l'Union ne peut se décider par une épreuve de force. L'élargissement doit être financé de façon équitable et raisonnable. Serait-il juste que le Royaume-Uní soit le seul parmi les Quinze à avoir diminué sa contribution financière nette après l'élargissement, s'exonérant ainsi de tout effort à la réunification de l'Europe? Vous avez déclaré que le chèque britannique n'était pas intangible, nous en prenons acte. Mais n'oubliez pas que la PAC a déjà été réformée à trois reprises. Vous me permettrez de m'étonner de la réaction britannique à l'égard des agriculteurs européens. La Grande-Bretagne est bien placée pour savoir à quel point la solidarité européenne s'est exprimée au cours des deux grandes crises sanitaires que nous avons connues avec l'ESB et la fièvre aphteuse et pour évaluer le coût supporté par l'Union européenne afin de surmonter ces deux catastrophes. L'avenir de l'Europe passe par notre capacité à garantir aux 450 millions d'Européens qu'ils pourront tous se nourrir à des prix raisonnables et en toute sécurité. Nous n'oublierons pas que vous avez déclaré ne pas vouloir réduire l'Union à un immense marché déshumanisé. Votre prédécesseur a rappelé qu'il voulait une Union politique intégrée et solidaire. Puisse la présidence britannique partager la même vision de notre avenir commun.

  El Presidente. Escuchen, no voy a dar la palabra al Primer Ministro, señor Blair, hasta que ustedes no se sienten y se callen. La absoluta falta de respeto que han demostrado hacia sus compañeros que estaban interviniendo antes...

Señor Martin Schulz, sé perfectamente quién está alterando el orden.

Le ruego a todos que se sienten y se callen. No vamos a continuar la sesión hasta que ustedes no se sienten y se callen. Y si no lo hacen, voy a pedir a los ujieres que les inviten a abandonar la sala. Los señores y señoras diputados que están en ese pasillo ¿quieren hacer el favor de sentarse?

(Aplausos)

¿Serían tan amables de estar atentos a lo que dice la Presidencia y no perturbar más el desarrollo de la sesión? Les ruego un poco de velocidad.

Bien. ¿Están dispuestos a escuchar al señor Blair? Pues entonces cállense, por favor.

  Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.

(Laughter)

It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!

(Laughter)

I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.

(Applause)

In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.

One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.

I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together.

In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.

(Applause)

On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.

Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.

(Applause)

It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.

(Laughter and applause)

Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!

I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.

In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.

I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.

(Mixed reactions)

Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!

(Laughter)

The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!

(Applause)

It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.

(Applause)

I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.

I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.

In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.

(Loud and sustained applause)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. Mr President, Members of this House, Prime Minister Blair, I agree with you that it was a very interesting and useful debate. We all understand that this situation is a very special one. It should not be seen as business as usual. I understand that there is a real appetite for a frank debate. There were, of course, different views, but this debate has shown that there is a will for the search for consensus. In that search for consensus, it is important to avoid simplifications: the idea to put those who are in favour of a free market against those who are for social commitment; the idea to put political integration against economic integration. The truth is that we need economic integration and political integration.

We need a consensus, but not one that ignores the need for the hard choices that Europe must make. There is now a risk in Europe: the risk of populism. Sometimes populism on the left against globalisation and foreign competition; sometimes populism on the right, just against foreigners and against the very idea of Europe. That is why it is important that all those who have some responsibility in Europe – be it at national or European level – fight that populism and show, collectively, their commitment to the values that make Europe a great project.

(Applause)

That is why it is important that responsible politicians fight that populism and do not resort to tabloid politics. That is why it is important that we should not be blocked now by the institutional problems we have. We must go ahead with our programme. The European Union must avoid paralysis. That is why it is very urgent to have a solution for the financial perspectives. That is why we have to respond to the expectations, namely of the new Member States that are looking to us for solidarity. That was their expectation and we should be committed to meeting their expectations. That is why Europe needs ambition for reform and solidarity. The way forward for Europe is not to avoid the very idea of solidarity. Without solidarity and cohesion there is no such thing as a Union. A Union requires the mechanisms of solidarity.

I am looking forward to working with you, Prime Minister Blair, in what I hope will be a successful presidency. You can count on us. We are going to our work every day. We have been doing everything to avoid the idea that Europe is paralysed. After that very difficult European Council, Prime Minister Juncker and I attended the successful summits in Canada and the United States. Yesterday we had a very successful conference here on Iraq. Yesterday the Commission took very important and courageous decisions: the Green Paper on energy efficiency; a new sugar market reform – which shows, by the way, that the common agricultural policy can also be reformed.

This evening I leave for Africa because, like you, I attach great importance to the African agenda and our solidarity with that continent. I hope that I will also help your G8 presidency for the goals for Africa and our solidarity.

To conclude and to summarise, we have to reform and change. However, when we speak about reform and change we are speaking about reforming our economy and making it more competitive. We are not speaking about changing or reforming the old values of the European Union or of Europe, the values that were those of our founding fathers for a European Union that believes in solidarity with ambition for all our citizens.

(Applause)

  El Presidente. Muchas gracias a todos por su participación en este importante debate.

Se cierra el debate.

7. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet

  El Presidente. El punto siguiente es el turno de votaciones.

(Para los resultados y otros detalles de la votación: véase el Acta).

8. Emenda għad-deċiżjoni ta' l-4 ta' Ġunju 2003 dwar l-adozzjoni ta' l-Istatut tal-Membri tal-Parlament Ewropew

- Antes de la votación

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Jag vill bara påpeka ett fel i den svenska versionen. Det som i andra språkversioner är artikel 23.2 är i den svenska versionen artikel 12.7.

- Antes de la votación sobre enmienda 13

  Edith Mastenbroek (PSE). – Mr President, very briefly, it is clear from the voting list, but I have learnt from experience that it is very good to point it out at length. This is not an amendment to amend the Statute but an amendment to the legislative resolution. Irrespective of the rumours that have been going around the House, it refers to the expense regime that was agreed to in the Members’ Statute, namely the travel expenses at real costs, not all the expenses.

-Después de la votación

  Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), relatore. – Signor Presidente, desidero solo dire che questa votazione è il risultato di un lungo dibattito che avuto luogo in Parlamento e che lei ha il merito di aver concluso questo itinerario. La ringrazio pertanto a nome di tutto il Parlamento e ringrazio pure la Commissione e il Presidente di turno del Consiglio. Non ci siamo capiti solo su un punto, ma credo che si sia raggiunto un equilibrio complessivo.

Ringrazio inoltre i colleghi della commissione e in particolare l'onorevole Lehne, che ha dato un grande contributo al raggiungimento di questo importante risultato, che porta il Parlamento - come abbiamo detto stamattina - al centro dell’attenzione dell'Europa unita.

  El Presidente. Señor Gargani, muchas gracias por sus constructivas palabras. Muchas gracias a todos y muy en particular a la Presidencia luxemburguesa.

PRESIDENCIA DEL SR. VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCA
Vicepresidente

9. Kompożizzjoni tal-Parlament: ara l-Minuti

10. Komunikazzjoni tal-pożizzjonijiet komunit tal-Kunsill: ara l-Minuti

11. Approvazzjoni tal-Minuti tas-seduta ta' qabel: ara l-Minuti

12. Korrezzjonijiet tal-votazzjoni tal-minuti preċedenti: ara l-minuti

13. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet (tkomplija)

14. Restrizzjonijiet fuq il-marketing u l-użu ta' ċerti sustanzi u preparazzjonijiet perikolużi (CMR)

15. Iċ-ċaqliq ta' persuni minn naħa għal oħra tal-fruntieri

16. Regolamentazzjoni relati ma' l-esekuzzjoni tal-Baġit

17. Il-kwalità tad-data ta' l-istatistika fil-kuntest ta' Proċedura ta' Defiċit Eċċessiv

18. Miżuri restrittivi kontra persuni li jostakolaw il-proċess tal-paċi u li jiksru l-liġi internazzjonali fil-kunflitt fir-reġjun ta' Darfur fis-Sudan

19. Ksur ta' l-embargo tal-armi impost fuq ir-Repubblika Demokratika tal-Kongo

20. Emendi għall-abbozz tal-baġit li jemenda 2/2005

21. Il-baġit emendat 2/2005

22. Sorveljanza tal-posizzjonijiet baġitarji kif ukoll sorveljanza u koordinazzjoni tal-politika ekonomika

23. Ħarsien ta' l-interessi finanzjarji tal-Komunità

24. Aċċess għal għajnuna esterna tal-Komunita'

25. Pjan ta' bini mill-ġdid tal-provvista tal-ħalibatt għall-Atlantiku tal-Majjistral

26. Kunsill Ewropew / Presidenza Lussemburgiża

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – Herr Präsident! Da wir anscheinend die einzige Fraktion sind, die zu dem gemeinsamen Kompromiss, den wir ausgehandelt haben, voll stehen, habe ich Rücksprache mit zumindest einem Teil der anderen Fraktionen gehalten und kann nun auch in deren Namen beantragen, nach Artikel 170 unserer Geschäftsordnung die Abstimmung zu verschieben - unabhängig davon, ob wir zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt darüber abstimmen werden. Ich beantrage also nach Artikel 170 die Verschiebung der Abstimmung.

(Beifall)

(El Parlamento da su acuerdo a esta propuesta)

27. Affari Lloyd

28. Riċerka fuq is-Sigurtà

- Antes de la votación

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – Herr Präsident! Ich beantrage, dass wir, wenn das möglich ist, über die einzelnen Abänderungsanträge en bloc abstimmen, über die endgültige Entschließung natürlich nicht.

(Beifall)

29. Soċjetà ta' l-Informazzjoni

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident! So sehr ich verstehen kann, dass man die Abstimmung schnell hinter sich bringen will – es geht dennoch nicht, weil sie eine ganze Reihe von verschiedenen Punkten enthält. Mein Vorschlag zum Verfahren ist, über die Anträge 1 bis 21 in einem Block abzustimmen. Über die anderen Punkte muss tatsächlich im Einzelnen abgestimmt werden.

  El Presidente.- Con esto hemos concluido el turno de votaciones.

30. Spjegazzjonijiet tal-votazzjoni

- Informe: Gargani (A6-0189/2005)

  Michl Ebner (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Ich habe gegen dieses Statut gestimmt, und zwar aus fünf Gründen. Erstens, weil ich finde, dass der Zeitpunkt nicht der richtige ist. Während ganz Europa sich mit dem Thema der Zukunft Europas auseinandersetzt, setzen wir uns mit der Zukunft unserer finanziellen Regelung auseinander. Zweitens bin ich gegen ein Steuerprivileg. Drittens halte ich es nicht für die richtige Botschaft, dass wir uns die Rente vom Steuerzahler bezahlen lassen. Viertens finde ich, dass wir nicht einen Prozentsatz des Bezuges eines Richters bekommen sollten, sondern es sollte umgekehrt sein: Die Richter sollten einen Prozentsatz des Bezuges eines vom souveränen Volk frei gewählten Abgeordneten bekommen. Es würde ja auch viel besser klingen, wenn ein Richter 250% des Gehaltes eines Abgeordneten bekommt. Schließlich ist all dies auf die Zukunft ausgerichtet. Wir entscheiden also für die zukünftigen Abgeordneten, und das finde ich auch nicht sehr korrekt.

Ich glaube, das ist kein sehr positives Ergebnis. Deswegen habe ich dagegen gestimmt, und viele meiner Kollegen, die heute dafür gestimmt haben, haben dies sicherlich nicht aus Überzeugung, sondern aufgrund des medialen Drucks getan, und das ist auch schade!

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Auch ich habe gegen das Abgeordnetenstatut gestimmt, weil ich es für das falsche Signal halte. Es ist das falsche Signal, im Windschatten der gegenwärtigen europäischen Krise hier so schnell das Statut zu verabschieden. Ich empfinde es auch etwas als Augenwischerei, als Wein in alten Schläuchen, denn ich sehe keinen großen Unterschied zu dem Entwurf, den wir im Bericht Rothley vorgelegt bekommen haben.

Wir haben in den letzten Tagen oft gehört, dass zur Bewältigung der Krise Europas Bürgerforen eingerichtet werden sollen. Warum richten wir kein Bürgerforum zum Abgeordnetenstatut ein? Warum keine Internetkonsultation? Wenn wir uns im Verfassungsprozess eine Denkpause verordnen, warum gilt das nicht auch für das Abgeordnetenstatut? Ich finde es nach wie vor nicht richtig, es an die Reiseaufwendungen zu koppeln. Das kann man voneinander trennen, dafür brauchen wir nicht so hastig und übereilt dieses Abgeordnetenstatut.

Ich bitte Sie aber, eine Abstimmung zu korrigieren. Ich bin natürlich dafür, das Eintrittsalter in die Rente nicht zu senken. Auch das können wir der Bevölkerung in Zeiten von Einsparungen und Sozialkürzungen absolut nicht vermitteln. Ich finde, wir haben Europa heute einen Bärendienst erwiesen! Ich glaube nicht, dass das Misstrauen und die Politikverdrossenheit hinsichtlich der Europäischen Institutionen damit behoben werden können.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – Voorzitter, ik denk inderdaad dat wij vandaag een totaal verkeerd signaal hebben afgegeven door te stemmen over het verslag-Gargani over het Statuut van de leden, niet in het minst omdat eens te meer de indruk gewekt wordt dat dit Parlement eigenlijk in zeer grote en ruime mate bezig is met de eigen voordelen van de parlementsleden. Volgens mij is trouwens het zogenaamde wegwerken van een aantal misbruiken slechts een doekje voor het bloeden is, in het beste geval een pleister op een houten been. In werkelijkheid worden andermaal nieuwe voorrechten voor parlementsleden ingebouwd die door niets of niemand te verdedigen zijn. Ik denk bijvoorbeeld aan de geplande regeling voor het pensioenfonds.

Het is ook een fout signaal omdat, behalve een aantal Europese parlementsleden zelf, in heel Europa niemand zit te wachten op een gemeenschappelijk Statuut voor alle Europese parlementsleden. Wij vertegenwoordigen hier onze volkeren en onze lidstaten. Waarom zouden wij mordicus een ander Statuut moeten hebben dan onze collega's van de nationale parlementen tenzij men van menig is dat Europa natuurlijk een superstaat is, wat niet mijn wens is. Mocht dit verslag een nieuwe stunt zijn om nog meer mensen in het verzet te brengen tegen wat we stilaan de Eurocratie moeten noemen, dan is het alvast in zijn opzet geslaagd.

  Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! In einer Zeit, in der die EU sich in einer tiefen Krise befindet, in einer Zeit, in der es nicht gelingt, Einigkeit über die Europäische Verfassung zu erzielen, in einer Zeit, in der wir es nicht schaffen, über die zukünftige finanzielle Basis der EU zu entscheiden, in einer Zeit, in der wir in der EU große wirtschaftliche Probleme und hohe Arbeitslosigkeit haben, in einer solchen Zeit beschäftigen wir uns als Europäisches Parlament einmal mehr mit uns selbst. Abgehobener kann Europapolitik nicht wirken!

Ich habe gegen das Abgeordnetenstatut gestimmt, weil ich gegen ein Steuerprivileg für uns Europaabgeordnete bin. Ich will besteuert werden wie meine Wähler und Mitbürger in Deutschland, und ich will als deutscher EU-Abgeordneter so bezahlt werden wie meine nationalen Kollegen im deutschen Bundestag.

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Wir haben als EVP-Delegation für dieses Abgeordnetenstatut gestimmt, weil wir das Verhandlungsergebnis zwischen dem Parlament und dem Rat zur Kenntnis genommen haben. Wir bedauern, dass der Rat dem Parlament in Bezug auf den Bericht Rothley Bedingungen diktiert hat. Eine dieser Bedingungen war der Verzicht auf den Eigenbeitrag bei der Pension als Äquivalent für die Kürzung des Gehaltes. Jede Änderung, die wir heute hier eingebracht hätten, hätte dieses Abgeordnetenstatut aus der Sicht des Rates zu Fall gebracht. Nach 10 Jahren Verhandlungen war es an der Zeit, dass dieses Parlament sich ebenfalls ein Abgeordnetenstatut gibt und gleiche Arbeit gleich bezahlt wird. Diesem Kompromiss haben wir unsere Zustimmung gegeben, obwohl zweifelsohne in vielen Bereichen Verbesserungen notwendig gewesen wären.

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM), skriftlig. JuniBevægelsen er stærk principiel modstander af en fælles medlemsstatut, som vil gøre medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet til EU's repræsentanter i medlemslandene i stedet for Danmarks repræsentanter i EU.

JuniBevægelsens repræsentant har cirka 50 gange foreslået, at man skal rejse efter regning, og nu er chancen for at få dét i dette kompromis. JuniBevægelsen stemmer derfor for dette kompromis samtidig med, at vi fastholder vores principielle modstand mod statutten, som desværre blev godkendt i Nice-traktaten.

  Udo Bullmann (PSE), schriftlich. Ich unterstütze das Anliegen, ein einheitliches Statut für alle Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments zu schaffen. Ein gutes gemeinsames Statut ist eine wichtige Voraussetzung für ein funktionsfähiges Europäisches Parlament.

Kernbestandteil eines solchen Statuts muss jedoch eine moderne EU-weite Regelung des Immunitätsrechts der Europäischen Abgeordneten sein. Im vorliegenden Entwurf der Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments werden die Mitgliedstaaten ersucht, die in einem Protokoll von 1965 niedergelegten Bestimmungen zu überprüfen. Im Entwurf des Statuts selbst fehlt eine entsprechende Regelung.

Ich halte das für einen zentralen Mangel und habe deswegen wie in der Abstimmung im Dezember 2003 gegen den Statutsentwurf gestimmt. Sollte das Statut 2009 in Kraft treten, hoffe ich sehr, dass dieser Mangel bis dahin durch eine verbindliche, gleiche und EU-weit einheitliche Regelung des Immunitätsrechts der Europaabgeordneten behoben sein wird.

Der ursprüngliche Entwurf des Kollegen Rothley war der jetzigen Vorlage nicht nur in dieser Hinsicht deutlich überlegen. Er verkörperte auch in einer ganzen Reihe von weiteren Punkten ein gegenüber nationalen (auch deutschen) Regeln moderneres und für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger nachvollziehbareres Parlamentsrecht. Dies gilt etwa für den geforderten Eigenbeitrag der Abgeordneten zur Pension, der auch in vielen nationalen Parlamentsregeln nicht vorgesehen ist.

  Lena Ek, Cecilia Malmström och Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE), skriftlig. Idag har parlamentet röstat om den länge diskuterade ledamotsstadgan. Det finns tveksamma inslag men till den övervägande delen innebär det en förbättring jämfört med gällande regler bland annat gällande reseersättningar, skatter och pensioner. Ersättning kommer att utgå för faktiska resekostnader istället för en hög schablonersättning. Stadgan innebär också att samtliga ledamöter får en gemensam lönenivå från 2009. Detta är framförallt viktigt för att våra kollegor från de nya medlemsländerna skall få en skälig lönenivå och för att minska lönegapet mellan dem som tjänar minst och dem som tjänar mest. Inför omröstningen fanns flera bra ändringsförslag, såsom krav på en gemensam stadga för ledamöternas assistenter och möjligheten för de ledamöter som så önskar att redan från 2007 få ersättning enbart för sina faktiska kostnader. Vi har länge stött en utveckling mot en assistentstadga och ersättningar av faktiska kostnader. Det kommer vi fortsätta att göra även i framtiden. För att säkra att den med Rådet kompromissade stadgan går igenom har vi idag dock valt att rösta emot samtliga de ändringsförslag som lagts fram i Plenum och röstat för utskottets betänkande. En förändring av komprommissen äventyrar enigheten i Rådet och därmed möjligheten att kunna enas om ledamotsstadgan överhuvudtaget.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Na sequência do compromisso assumido em 3/06/05 pelos representantes dos Estados-Membros e Conselho sobre o Estatuto dos deputados ao Parlamento Europeu, o plenário retomou a sua decisão de 4 de Junho de 2003, insistindo na criação de um subsídio parlamentar mensal, igual para todos os deputados, independentemente dos países que representam, cujo montante, a valores actuais, ronda cerca de 7000 euros mensais, ou seja, cerca do dobro do que recebem os deputados portugueses na Assembleia da República, o que agravaria o distanciamento entre os deputados no Parlamento Europeu e os titulares de cargos políticos nos diferentes países, quando o seu trabalho e as suas actividades são semelhantes, o que rejeitamos.

É certo que esta decisão tem uma ou outra alteração, que registamos positivamente, designadamente no que se refere à maior transparência no pagamento dos transportes, apontando para uma base de custos reais.

Ora, os deputados ao Parlamento Europeu são eleitos em círculos nacionais, pelo que estão, e devem continuar a estar, vinculados a esses círculos. Rejeitamos a concepção federalista do mandato de deputado ao Parlamento Europeu, dado que esquece as realidades sociais muito diferenciadas dos países da União Europeia, nomeadamente a realidade salarial dos trabalhadores, agravando a distância entre os eleitos e os povos que representam.

  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Vi vill än en gång markera vår principiella inställning i denna fråga.

Vi anser att ledamöterna i EU-parlamentet skall erhålla lön från respektive nationellt parlament.

Subsidiaritetsprincipen skall vara vägledande. Det är upp till respektive medlemsstat att avgöra vilken ersättning som skall utgå till landets ledamöter. De nationella ersättningarna till EU-parlamentarikerna är anpassade efter det faktiska löne- och kostnadsläge som råder i respektive medlemsstat. Ledamöterna bör få ersättning från hemlandet och betala skatt i sina respektive hemländer.

Det är viktigt att EU-parlamentarikerna inte betraktas som en privilegierad elit av väljarna i hemlandet, utan att villkoren någorlunda står i överenskommelse med det nationella löneläget för motsvarande positioner.

Det nuvarande systemet med reseersättningar, utan hänsyn till faktiska kostnader, och baserade på schablonmässiga ersättningar, är enligt vår uppfattning helt orimligt. Ledamöterna skall endast få ersättning för de faktiska kostnader som uppstår i samband med resor. Systemet med reseersättningar kan reformeras, utan att en gemensam ledamotsstadga antas. Vi har röstat nej till förslaget om en gemensam ledamotsstadga.

  Lissy Gröner (PSE), schriftlich. Seit vielen Jahren fordert das Europäische Parlament ein einheitliches Statut für die Abgeordneten. Unzählige Male wurde von uns kritisiert, dass Europas VolksvertreterInnen extrem unterschiedlich honoriert würden.

Der demokratische Ausbau der EU muss allen Staaten gleich viel Wert sein. Der Rat hat jetzt zum zweiten Mal einen Vorschlag vorgelegt und wir als gewählte ParlametarierInnen sollen nun diesem Kompromiss zustimmen. Er sieht vor ein gutes Drittel der Einkommen eines europäischen Richters zur Grundlage der Abgeordneteneinkünfte zu machen. Ich vermisse klare Aussagen, was den Europäerinnen und Europäern die finanzielle Unabhängigkeit ihrer Parlamentsmitglieder wert ist. Stattdessen sehen sich Abgeordnete einer unwürdigen Medienkampagne ausgesetzt. Zu einer Zeit in der sich alle proeuropäischen Kräfte auf die Überwindung der Probleme der Modernisierung im neuen großen Europa konzentrieren werde ich keine Energie in das Projekt "Statut" geben, das uns als "Selbstbedienungsladen" vorgeworfen werden kann.

In der Schlussabstimmung werde ich mit Enthaltung stimmen.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE), schriftlich. Die Verabschiedung eines Statuts für die Europaabgeordneten ist eine falsche Diskussion im falschen Moment.

Zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt ist jedem bewusst, dass die EU über seine grundlegende Orientierung diskutieren muss. Die Entscheidung der französischen und der niederländischen Bevölkerung ist unter anderem ein klarer Hinweis darauf gewesen, dass die EU die Bürgernähe verstärken muss, um das europäische Projekt wieder glaubwürdig zu machen. In diesem Kontext habe ich kein Verständnis dafür, dass eine Debatte über das Statut der Europaabgeordneten auf der Tagesordnung steht. Der Zeitpunkt ist mehr als schlecht gewählt.

Ich begrüße die eingebrachte Verbesserung, dass die Rückerstattung der Reisekosten auf Basis der tatsächlich entstandenen Unkosten erfolgt und nicht mehr pauschal gezahlt werden.

Trotzdem vertrete ich die Meinung, dass es schwierig ist, den Parlamentariern ein europäisches Statut zu geben, das sich von dem nationalen unterscheidet. Wie soll man den Unterschied zwischen dem Verdienst eines Abgeordneten im europäischen Parlament gegenüber einem Vertreter in einem nationalen Parlament erklären und begründen?

In diesem Zusammenhang der aktuellen Geschehnisse enthalte ich meine Stimme bei der Abstimmung über das Abgeordnetenstatut.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Afirmamos, desde sempre, o desacordo quanto à criação de um "subsídio parlamentar" mensal, igual para todos os deputados ao Parlamento Europeu, independentemente dos países e povos que representam.

Os deputados ao PE são eleitos em círculos nacionais e a eles estão, e devem continuar a estar, vinculados. A criação de um "subsídio parlamentar" único, financiado pelo orçamento da UE e sujeito a um imposto comunitário, inscreve-se numa concepção federalista do mandato do deputado ao PE, visando transformar o actual "deputado nacional no PE" num futuro "deputado europeu".

Por outro lado, as realidades sociais dos diferentes países da UE são muito diferenciadas, tornando inevitável, com criação de um "subsídio parlamentar" de cerca 7.000 Euros (cerca de 1.400 contos) mensais, a existência de situações de profunda desigualdade e disparidade face à realidade salarial dos trabalhadores e de eleitos (como os deputados da Assembleia da República) e titulares de instituições públicas, nomeadamente em Portugal, o que seria completamente incompreensível.

Da mesma forma, reafirmamos o compromisso de continuar a pugnar pela transparência e rigor quanto à utilização dos meios postos à disposição dos deputados ao PE para o desenvolvimento da sua actividade.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. I and my British Conservative colleagues have argued consistently for greater transparency and accountability with regard to Members' salaries and expenses. The package proposed by the Legal Affairs committee represents an important step forward in achieving a fair and open system.

Conservatives have always believed that we should be taxed at the same rate as our UK constituents (article 12, point 3), that our salary is equal to that of our colleagues in Westminster (article 29, points 1 and 2), and to ensure that travel expenses are only reimbursed for the actual amount incurred (article 20, point 2). Indeed, it was Conservative amendments, adopted in committee, which will allow Member States to adopt additional measures in order to place MEPs on an equal footing with members of national parliaments.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), schriftelijk. Onze partij, de Socialistische Partij in Nederland, heeft op 17 december 2003 gestemd tegen het toenmalige ontwerp voor een ledenstatuut. Wij keerden ons niet tegen een eenheidssalaris, maar wat toen werd voorgesteld was veel te hoog. Bovendien vonden we het belangrijk dat dit salaris kan worden onderworpen aan nationale belastingen en dat de reiskostenvergoeding daadwerkelijk wordt beperkt tot de echte uitgaven. Onze ervaring is nu dat je daarop jaarlijks meer dan de helft kunt terugbetalen. In het Nederlandse parlement vroegen we de regering om dit document in de Raad niet goed te keuren.

Het daardoor gewijzigde voorstel, waarover we vandaag stemmen, is nog steeds niet wat wij willen. Het salaris moet lager dan € 7000,-- en artikel 9.3 wijzen we ronduit af. Wij beseffen dat een tegenstem nu geen verdere verbeteringen meer kan opleveren. Nu het maximale is behaald vinden we dat een overwinning in onze langdurige strijd tegen verkeerde voorstellen. Aanvaarding van dit voorstel is een nederlaag voor diegenen die jarenlang tegenstand hebben geboden omdat ze een statuut beneden hun waardigheid, de salarissen en onkostenvergoedingen te laag en de controles op de financiën te bemoeizuchtig vonden. Met hun tegenstem kunnen ze duidelijk maken dat zij onbeschaamd zakkenvullers willen zijn.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. A matéria em discussão neste relatório é importante e tinha de ser enfrentada já que, sobretudo depois do último alargamento, a ausência de uma uniformização no Estatuto dos Deputados era um factor de injustificada desigualdade. Por essa razão, votei de acordo com o que considero mais relevante nesta proposta de Estatuto dos Deputados ao Parlamento Europeu.

Há, no entanto, dois aspectos que me merecem ainda um comentário.

O facto de esta proposta não abranger a actual legislatura - para além de ter um período de transição amplo - permitiu-me agir com a liberdade de quem não está a votar matérias do seu próprio interesse.

Finalmente, a oportunidade. Posto a votação, o relatório mereceu o meu acordo, mas se tivesse sido posta a votação a oportunidade da discussão, o meu voto teria sido desfavorável. A política não é apenas simbologia, mas também é e o facto de o parlamento decidir votar esta matéria nesta ocasião de crise profunda das Instituições europeias não merece nem o meu acordo nem o meu aplauso.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), skriftlig. 'Jag röstar nej till Garganis betänkade eftersom den föreslagna stadgan innebär oacceptabla löneförhöjningar, alltför generösa pensioner samt en alltför lång övergångsperiod på två mandatperioder. Den frivilliga pensionfonden borde dessutom ha avskaffats med omedelbar verkan.

Istället borde talmanskonferensen genomföra plenums beslut om reseersättning för faktiska kostnader istället för att som hittills blockera denna reform för att kunna använda frågan om reserersättningar i förhandlingarna med rådet.'

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), skriftlig. Principiellt anser Vänsterpartiet att det är fel att man röstar om sina egna löner och ersättningar.

Vänsterpartiet stödjer att man äntligen har förslag om att ta bort schablonersättningen gällande parlamentarikernas resor. Det är positivt att ersättning i fortsättningen ska utgå efter den faktiska kostnaden.

Däremot stödjer Vänsterpartiet inte förslaget till lön, eftersom lönenivån är för hög. Politiskt förtroendevalda får inte genom höga ersättningar bli en ekonomisk elit.

Skatten ska naturligtvis betalas nationellt, ingen EU-skatt.

Kritiken gäller också ett alltför förmånligt pensionssystem.

P g a redovisade skäl lägger jag ned min röst i slutomröstningen.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), schriftelijk. Voorzitter, ondanks de slechtst mogelijke timing voor de afhandeling van dit jarenlange aanslepende dossier over een uniform statuut van de leden, heb ik meegestemd en op de "plus-knop" gedrukt. Ik heb voor gestemd, niet omdt ik dit een uitstekend statuut vind, want dat is het niet. Daarvoor is alleen al de graad van uniformiteit onvoldoende. Maar ik heb doorheen al die keren dat we in het Parlement al gestemd hebben en nadien hebben moeten vaststellen, dat de Raad niet in staat was tot een akkoord te komen, geleerd dat de nagestreefde gemeenschappelijkheid niet haalbaar is en dat een "ideaal" statuut niet bestaat. Het statuut dat door de Juridische Commissie wordt voorgesteld, en dat naar verluidt nu in de Raad wel op goedkeuring kon rekenen, is in die zin beter dan de huidige situatie dat het zorgt voor de nodige transparantie en dat het ons eindelijk brengt bij de enige aanvaardbare reiskostenregeling, met name een die erin bestaat alleen de werkelijk betaalde kosten terug te betalen. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat dit alleen al een voldoende reden is om voor te stemmen, zelfs als het op de verkeerde dag gebeurt.

  Γεώργιος Τούσσας (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Είναι πρόκληση για τους λαούς της Ευρώπης η Έκθεση για "το καθεστώς βουλευτών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου", δηλαδή η διαμόρφωση νέου πλαισίου προνομίων, ενώ είναι πρόσφατη η καταψήφιση του ονομαζόμενου Ευρωσυντάγματος από τη Γαλλία και Ολλανδία, η οποία εκφράζει τη γενικευμένη αντίθεση των λαών στην αντιλαϊκή πολιτική της ΕΕ. Κατά συνέπεια δε νομιμοποιείται η ΕΕ και το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο να παίρνει τέτοιες αποφάσεις.

Οι Ευρωβουλευτές του ΚΚΕ καταψηφίζουν την έκθεση γιατί θεωρούν ότι οι Ευρωβουλευτές πρέπει να παίρνουν αποζημίωση από τις χώρες που εκλέγονται, αντιπροσωπεύουν και απολογούνται και όχι από την ΕΕ. Είναι, επίσης, πρόκληση απέναντι στους εργαζομένους που συντρίβονται από τη νέα αντιλαϊκή λαίλαπα της ΕΕ να καθορίζεται μηνιαίος μισθός των Ευρωβουλευτών 7000 €, ενώ ο μηνιαίος μισθός στην Ελλάδα π.χ. είναι 572,30 €.

Οι εργαζόμενοι και τα λαϊκά στρώματα πρέπει να βγάλουν συμπεράσματα από την κοινή στάση των συντηρητικών και σοσιαλδημοκρατικών κομμάτων, τα οποία επιταχύνουν την επίθεση στα λαϊκά εισοδήματα και το βιοτικό τους επίπεδο για να μεγαλώσουν τα κέρδη του κεφαλαίου και την ίδια στιγμή διασφαλίζουν προνόμια για τους πολιτικούς εκπροσώπους της πλουτοκρατίας.

  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Δικαιολογώ την ψήφο αποχής στην έκθεση Gargani: Τάσσομαι υπέρ της διαφάνειας στο θέμα μισθολογίου και αποζημίωσης των Βουλευτών. Όμως, της πλήρης διαφάνειας που είναι πρωιόν διαλόγου μέσω του οποίου αναδεικνύονται οι πραγματικότητες πάνω στις οποίες πρέπει να εδράζεται η οποιαδήποτε απόφαση.

Στην προκημένη περίπτωση, δεν υπήρξε επαρκής διάλογος. Δεν ληφθήκαν υπόψη όλα τα αντικειμενικά δεδομένα. Για παράδειγμα, η προτεινόμενη αποζημίωση για τα οδοιπορικά δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το χρόνο ταξιδίου. Ούτε την ταλαιπωρία. Η αναλογία μισθού Βουλευτή/Δικαστή δε λαμβάνει υπόψη διαφύγοντα εισοδήματα Βουλευτών.

  Ralf Walter (PSE), schriftlich. Ich unterstütze die rasche Verabschiedung eines Statuts für Abgeordnete. Es sollte sobald wie möglich gleiche Bedingungen für alle Abgeordnete im Europäischen Parlament geben.

Dennoch werde ich nicht an der Abstimmung teilnehmen, denn ich werde die Regelung nicht in Anspruch nehmen. Ich habe die Tätigkeit zu den bisherigen Bedingungen aufgenommen und werde sie auch für mich beibehalten.

- Informe: Cashman (A6-0188/2005)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), por escrito. Regozijo-me com a aplicação do processo de co-decisão em relação a estas propostas e com o facto do Tribunal de Justiça passar a pronunciar-se sobre as matérias relativas ao código de fronteiras e, designadamente, no que se refere à reintrodução de controlos nas fronteiras internas.

Uma das maiores conquistas da integração europeia é poder circular sem estar sujeito a controlos fronteiriços internos. Logo, estes só poderão ser reintroduzidos excepcional e temporariamente. Sem pôr em causa a realização de controlos policiais que podem ocorrer em todo o território.

Por outro lado, as fronteiras externas deverão constituir um filtro eficaz que evite a entrada de pessoas que constituam uma ameaça à nossa sociedade, salvaguardando, porém, a fluidez da circulação. O controlo fronteiriço deve ser efectivo e eficaz, os EM deverão possuir os recursos humanos e financeiros necessários para tal, ao mesmo tempo que deverá existir um respeito absoluto dos direitos fundamentais, na aplicação desses controlos.

Apoio, assim, este relatório do Deputado Cashman, que apoia no essencial a proposta da Comissão, no sentido da "comunitarização" da gestão das fronteiras externas, de modo a assegurar que os controlos sejam efectuados de acordo com as mesmas normas e definidas as mesmas condições de entrada para nacionais de países terceiros.

  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Junilistan stödjer i stort den överenskomna kompromissen mellan rådet, kommissionen och parlamentet. Kodexen förtydligar på många punkter tidigare oklara regler utspridda bland flera rättskällor. Särskilt anser vi det välkommet att skyddet mot diskriminering vid genomförande av gränskontroller förstärks liksom möjligheterna för tredjelandsmedborgare som nekats inresa att överklaga beslut.

Vi delar dock inte föredragandens åsikt att EG-domstolen ska ges befogenhet att döma i frågor som rör återinförande av kontroller vid de inre gränserna och välkomnar därför att rådet inte accepterat dessa förslag. Junilistan anser att varje medlemsstat ska få förbehålla sig rätten att återinföra sina gränskontroller om den anser så nödvändigt för att bekämpa drogsmuggling, illegal människohandel liksom trafficking, och om det krävs utträda ur Schengensamarbetet.

  Αθανάσιος Παφίλης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Ο Κοινοτικός Κώδικας για διέλευση εξωτερικών και εσωτερικών συνόρων Ε.Ε. εφαρμόζει τις ρατσιστικές και αντιμεταναστευτικές αποφάσεις Σεβίλλης , Θεσσαλονίκης, για τη δημιουργία μιας Ε.Ε. - φρούριο, εχθρικής, απάνθρωπης απέναντι στα θύματα της πολιτικής του ιμπεριαλισμού και του διεθνούς μονοπωλιακού κεφαλαίου, όταν επιχειρούν να διαβούν τα σύνορά της.

Ο ξένος υπήκοος που θέλει να εισέλθει και παραμείνει στην Ε.Ε. για 3 μήνες το πολύ, δεν αρκεί να είναι εφοδιασμένος με τα απαραίτητα έγγραφα, να πείσει ότι έχει νόμιμους λόγους, επαρκή οικονομικά μέσα για να ζήσει το διάστημα αυτό, να δώσει λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες για το πού/πώς θα μείνει, αλλά επιπλέον πρέπει να μην "είναι καταχωρημένος ως ανεπιθύμητος στο Σύστημα Πληροφοριών Σένγκεν" ή να μη θεωρηθεί ότι "αποτελεί απειλή για τη δημόσια τάξη, εσωτερική ασφάλεια, δημόσια υγεία ή τις διεθνείς σχέσεις ενός εκ των κρατών μελών..". Παίρνοντας υπόψη ότι, το 89% των εγγραφών του Συστήματος Πληροφοριών Σένγκεν αφορούν μη κατηγορούμενα άτομα (στηρίζονται σε ανεπιβεβαίωτες καταγγελίες "πληροφοριοδοτών"), η αυθαιρεσία και καταστολή σε βάρος των αλλοδαπών είναι τεράστια.

Η αντιμεταναστευτική πολιτική της Ε.Ε. αποδεικνύεται και από την κάθετη πτώση των εγκρίσεων αιτήσεων ασύλου, από τις προετοιμασίες για δημιουργία στρατοπέδων συγκέντρωσης μεταναστών κοκ. Η Ε.Ε. ανοίγει τα σύνορά της τόσο, όσο αυτό εξυπηρετεί τα συμφέροντα του κεφαλαίου για φτηνή εργατική δύναμη.

Το ΚΚΕ καταψηφίζει την έκθεση Cashman.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. A liberdade de circulação é, reconhecidamente, uma das virtudes mais sentidas e apreciadas pelos cidadãos da União Europeia. Ao mesmo tempo que a questão da emigração é uma das matérias políticas a que devemos, com seriedade e sobriedade, dar atenção.

Feita esta nota, considero que a questão mais específica - em parte quase técnica - abordada pelo relatório ainda assim não é de menor importância. As regras práticas a que devem obedecer tanto os "controlos internos" como os "controlos externos" das fronteiras têm uma relevância significativa. Antes de mais, importa que à segurança e ao exercício da autoridade esteja devidamente associado o respeito pelos cidadãos - nacionais ou não, de Estados Membros ou não -. Por outro lado, a existência de regras de excepção, a possibilidade de um Estados, por motivos válidos e justificados, suspender a aplicação das regras, o facto de ser defendida a possibilidade de recurso das decisões de não entrada sem prejuízo da eficácia imediata dessas decisões, bem como um conjunto de regras sobre os procedimentos aqui expressos merecem o meu acordo.

  Britta Thomsen (PSE), skriftlig. De danske socialdemokrater i Europa-Parlamentet har i dag stemt for Michael Cashman betænkning om indførelse af en fællesskabskodeks for personers passage af de fælles grænser

(A6-0188/2005). Vi er dog opmærksomme på, at forslaget vedrører et område, der er omfattet af EF-traktatens afsnit IV, og derfor ikke gælder for Danmark, jf. Protokollen om Danmarks stilling.

- Informe: Martin (A6-0154/2005)

  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Betänkandet syftar till att skapa en rättslig grund för samarbete och handelsförbindelser med följande industriländer: USA, Kanada, Japan, Sydkorea, Australien och Nya Zeeland. Samarbetet handlar bland annat om stödjande av centrum för EU-frågor. Handelssamarbetet handlar bland annat om utbyte, konferenser och ledarskapsutbildningar.

Vi stödjer EU:s gemensamma handelspolitik, men har svårt att motivera den budgeterade kostnaden för insatserna på 17 miljoner euro fram till 2007. Folkomröstningsresultaten i Frankrike och Holland visar att EU:s byråkrati måste bantas. Därför måste också onödiga utgifter strykas. Mot denna bakgrund röstar vi nej till betänkandet.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. As relações comerciais e de cooperação com os países envolvidos nos programas que este regulamento cobre são da maior importância para a União.

As avaliações destes programas são francamente positivas e devemos, no âmbito de boas e eficazes relações comerciais continuar a apoiar este tipo de iniciativa, que concorre para uma coordenação de iniviativas de apoio a actividades de investigação, intercâmbios de jovens ou ainda missões comerciais, com frutos para a Europa de hoje e para as próximas gerações.

- Informe: Gauzès (A6-0181/2005)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Este relatório faz parte integrante do pacote de reforma do Pacto de Estabilidade - PEC. As questões estatísticas, nomeadamente a harmonização das normas contabilísticas e dos agregados macroeconómicos ao nível do cálculo do défice público, foram das partes mais desenvolvidas no relatório "melhorar a aplicação do Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento", dirigido ao Conselho de Primavera de Março de 2005.

A intenção de melhorar o sistema estatístico europeu vai a par com a tentativa de restituir credibilidade ao PEC, tendo em conta as manipulações estatísticas e múltiplas contabilidades criativas. Para nós, a questão não é a importância da credibilidade do PEC. Para nós, o PEC devia ser revogado tendo em conta os seus impactos sócio-económicos.

O presente regulamento, reforçado com as alterações agora propostas pelo PE, aumenta os poderes da Comissão e do Eurostat, não só na definição e na certificação da qualidade dos dados estatístico, mas também na verificação e normalização dos procedimentos de cálculo, sobretudo ao nível de pressão directa sobre os governos, ao prever monitarizações nos Estados-Membros por parte da própria Comissão Europeia.

O nosso voto contra está, assim, em coerência com o voto global contra esta dita reforma do PEC.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Todas as acções que concorram para uma melhoria da governança da União Europeia devem ser apoiadas e tidas em séria conta.

O relatório do colega Gauzès contribui para os esforços que devem ser feitos na reforma do sistema estatístico comunitário, num contexto fundamental que é o do Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento.

Essencialmente, as trocas de informação devem reger-se por critérios de transparência e confiança entre os vários actores envolvidos. Por isso, é essencial que o rigor, a coerência e a qualidade sejam os princípios que orientam a colecta, troca e análise dos dados, no sistema de confiança e transparência de que se revestem e devem sempre revestir-se, as relações inter-institucionais e as relações entre os Estados-membros e as instituições comunitárias.

- Informe: Cavada (A6-0186/2005)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), por escrito. Apoio esta iniciativa necessária face à violação do acordo de cessar fogo, assinado em N'Djamena, em 8 de Abril de 2004. Através da presente proposta, e na sequência da Resolução 1591/2005 do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, pretende-se impor certas medidas restritivas adicionais contra o Sudão, nomeadamente:

- o congelamento dos fundos e recursos económicos das pessoas que entravam o processo de paz

- e evitar a entrada ou passagem em trânsito, no território dos Estados Membros, de pessoas que possam constituir uma ameaça para a estabilidade dessa região

Não podemos permitir que continue a existir uma violação dos direitos humanos, bem como do direito humanitário internacional, e que se continuem a cometer todo o tipo de atrocidades. É essencial que tomemos todas as medidas que estão ao nosso alcance, no sentido de se tentar restabelecer a paz em Darfour.

Tendo, no entanto, em mente que deve ser dada uma atenção muito especial a situações urgentes de excepção, por razões humanitárias.

- Informe: Cavada (A6-0194/2005)

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. As atitudes dos Estados - e das instituições internacionais - valem sempre mais que as suas palavras. Em matéria de conflitos, as vítimas sabem esta verdade melhor que ninguém. É por essa razão que, além do meu voto favorável, deixo aqui expressa a minha esperança na eficácia destas medidas, para a qual devemos contar com o empenho de todos e cada um dos 25 Estados Membros. Não há, nem pode haver, interesses nacionais contrários à paz e aos direitos humanos.

- Informes: Cavada (A6-0186/2005) y (A6-0194)

  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Junilistan stödjer FN:s båda resolutioner om Darfur och Kongo, som innebär att personer som hindrar fredsprocessen, kränker humanitär rätt och mänskliga rättigheter eller bryter mot vapenembargo ska hindras från att resa inom medlemsstaternas territorium samt att de medel, finansiella tillgångar och ekonomiska resurser som kan kopplas till dem spärras.

Vi vill dock inte medverka till att utveckla en gemensam utrikes- och säkerhetspolitik för EU. Samtliga medlemsstater är förpliktade att genomföra de åtgärder som beslutats av FN:s säkerhetsråd med stöd av kapitel VII i FN-stadgan, varför ett gemensamt beslut på EU-nivå inte är nödvändigt.

Junilistan har därför röstat nej till betänkandena.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. A importância da matéria aqui em apreço é inversamente proporcional à rapidez com que a comunidade internacional tem agido perante a trágica situação vivida em Darfur, no Sudão. Feito este reparo, em que tenho insistido sempre que o Parlamento Europeu tem abordado esta matéria, não deixo de considerar que o sentido do relatório merece o meu apoio, o meu voto favorável e a minha esperança em que seja eficaz.

- Informe: Karas (A6-0204/2005)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Como já tinha referido na primeira leitura deste relatório, a reforma do Pacto de Estabilidade - PEC foi insuficiente. Reafirmaram-se os objectivos e os critérios, dando sobretudo mais tempo. Mas o que se impunha era a suspensão do PEC e uma profunda ruptura com as políticas económicas e monetárias vigentes, para criar um quadro macroeconómico que fomente o crescimento económico sustentado e o emprego. Não é o caso. Os procedimentos de défices excessivos continuam a ser aplicados, nomeadamente a Portugal. Com a agravante de servir para justificar as medidas de austeridade incluídas nos programas de estabilidade apresentados, como é o caso português, onde não só os impostos aumentam, como existe um ataque generalizado à administração pública, particularmente aos funcionários públicos.

Continua-se sem querer tirar as lições devidas. Mas, mesmo assim, apesar da reforma do PEC ser cosmética, foi positivo que tenham sido rejeitadas as propostas maximalistas do relator que pretendia reforçar o PEC em situações de expansão, dar mais atenção ao critério da dívida e contrabalançando os dados transmitidos pelos governos face aos dados dos respectivos bancos centrais.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Le refus du Conseil de prendre en compte le moindre amendement proposé le Parlement européen n'est pas seulement un acte cavalier, c'est aussi une faute contre l'esprit de la réforme du pacte de stabilité. En effet, le résultat équilibré auquel est parvenu la présidence luxembourgeoise prévoit une flexibilisation de la procédure pour déficits excessifs, mais il comprend en même temps une surveillance accrue des positions budgétaires, avec l'idée simple, mais pleine de bon sens et vérité, qu'il convient d'économiser en période de vaches grasses pour faire face aux période de vaches maigres. Seulement l'affirmation de ce principe doit trouver sa traduction réelle dans les textes. C'est justement là que le bât blesse!

Après l'accord unanime du Conseil, certains Etats membres semblent ne pas tenir parole et essaient de revenir sur l'attention particulière qu'il conviendra désormais d'accorder à l'endettement public.

C'est un signal détestable a fortiori en ces temps troublés. La stabilité de l'euro en pâtira. Dans ces circonstances, le rapporteur ne propose rien d'autre que de repréciser l'engagement fait en matière de dette publique. Je ne puis que le soutenir dans ce sens, même si je ne fais aucun grief à la présidence, irréprochable dans cette affaire.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Apoiei o relatório do colega Othmar Karas, porque considero fundamental que se resolvam as questões que se vêm colocando nos últimos anos à revisão do Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento.

A reforma do PEC exige que se dê mais atenção à dívida e que as medidas de comparação entre os dados estatísticos fornecidos pelos Bancos centrais nacionais do Banco Central Europeu e os dados fornecidos pelos Estados-membros ao Eurostat sejam tidas em conta.

A reforma do PEC deverá incluir todos os actores implicados neste processo e todas as informações relativamente à evolução das economias dos Estados-membros devem ser claras e transparentes para que possamos agir atempadamente com medidas e reformas económicas que favoreçam o desenvolvimento e crescimento económico saudável das nossas economias.

- Informe: Duchoň (A6-0156/2005)

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. O relatório do colega Duchon cobre áreas de extrema importância para o futuro das actividades económicas na Europa. A protecção dos interesses financeiros da Comunidade é fundamental no combate à fraude e a todas as actividades ilegais lesivas dos seus interesses financeiros.

Creio, pois que este relatório reforça as medidas existentes de cooperação e troca de informações, fundamentais para o combate a estas actividades ilegais, sendo de sublinhar a importância primeira do OLAF, enquanto organismo ao serviço da União, para uma facilitação das trocas de informação. Votei, assim, favoravelmente este relatório.

- Informe: Gahler (A6-0182/2005)

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), por escrito. Quase metade dos financiamentos consagrados à ajuda aos países pobres provém da União Europeia e dos seus Estados Membros, que são assim o principal dador de ajuda no mundo. A União recorre igualmente ao comércio para fomentar o desenvolvimento, abrindo os seus mercados às exportações provenientes dos países pobres e incentivando-os a intensificarem as trocas comerciais entre si.

A proposta de regulamento relativa ao acesso à ajuda externa da Comunidade visa proceder a uma maior desvinculação da ajuda comunitária em domínios abrangidos por procedimentos de concurso para o fornecimento de bens e serviços no âmbito da ajuda externa.

O objectivo é de estabelecer as condições de acesso dos fornecedores a todos os programas de ajuda ao desenvolvimento financiados pelo orçamento comunitário e definir as regras de elegibilidade de pessoas e bens no âmbito dos instrumentos, estabelecendo critérios e derrogações.

Por isso, apoio o relatório do colega Gahler que salienta que uma desvinculação total desta ajuda poderia dar-lhe um acréscimo de eficácia correspondente a 2 a 3 mil milhões de dólares.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Aquilo que me parece mais relevante na matéria aqui em causa, e que justifica o sentido do meu voto - favorável - é a convicção de que a desvinculação promove a eficácia das ajudas comunitárias. Mais do que razões de ordem política, é a expectativa - justificada por estudos - de obter um maior sucesso sem sequer ter de alargar o orçamento, por mero efeito de uma maior racionalidade económica, que considero positiva.

- Informe: Kristensen (A6-0116/2005)

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM), skriftlig. På det foreliggende mener vi, at NAFO har ret i, at der er brug for en genopretningsplan for hellefisk. Derfor stemmer vi ikke i mod, at der lovgives i EU. Men vi kan heller ikke stemme for, fordi der på ingen måde er sandsynlighed for, at denne genopretningsplan som andre genopretningsplaner i EU's fiskeripolitik virker. Vi mener, at EU's fiskeripolitik har spillet fallit; på trods af omfattende foranstaltninger og bureaukrati er bestandene stadig truet. Det kan skyldes, at et isoleret indgreb i form af kvoter har medført stigende udsmid og der sker en skjult overførsel og omsætning af kvoter og rettigheder, og dertil lægges den store usikkerhed der knytter sig til bifangster i andre fiskerier. Derfor kan vi heller ikke stemme for en rapport der fortsætter EU's fiskeripolitik uantastet. Vi mener, at der er brug for at Parlamentet stiller krav om en evaluering af EU's fiskeripolitik, herunder genopretningsplanerne.

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), por escrito. O Conselho Científico da NAFO, adoptou um plano de recuperação de 15 anos para o Alabote da Gronelândia (palmeta), que prevê uma redução progressiva do TAC para esta espécie. Já transposto para a legislação comunitária numa base provisória ,o plano aguarda agora um carácter vinculativo e permanente.

Apesar de considerar a proposta legislativa apresentada coerente com a nova PCP, não concordo com alguns pontos que na versão apresentada pela Comissão seriam injustos para os pescadores comunitários. Refiro-me concretamente à redução de 20 para 5% relativa à margem de tolerância entre as estimativas das quantidades mantidas a bordo e as efectivamente registadas no mesmo. Não tendo este limite sido adoptado pela NAFO sempre considerei que a adopção desta medida seria de todo discriminatória para os pescadores comunitários.

Congratulo-me portanto com a supressão do artigo 8 da proposta e considero que o PE tornou o documento original mais equilibrado e justo.

  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Vi är motståndare till EU:s gemensamma fiskepolitik. Vi har dock valt att stödja detta betänkande, eftersom parlamentets position ligger närmare den återhämtningsplan som har antagits av Fiskeriorganisationen för Nordatlantens västra del (NAFO), än vad kommissionens förslag gör.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Esta zona de pesca, gerida por esta organização regional de pesca, tem uma enorme importância para a frota portuguesa.

O Plano prevê, não só reduções de TEC, como medidas de controlo adicional, o que obviamente terá impactos socio-económicos. Por isso, como noutros planos de recuperação de unidades populacionais, consideramos essencial, para além da garantia da sustentabilidade dos recursos haliêuticos e de dados científicos fiáveis, garantir as devidas medidas sócio-economicas de apoio ás frotas afectadas pela redução das pescarias ou pela paralisação temporária da actividade.

Apoiamos as propostas do PE que melhoram pontos sobre os quais estávamos em discordância com a proposta da Comissão:

- a não existência de auto-limitações pelas frotas de países da UE superiores às outras frotas que operam nas mesmas águas (não se percebe porque é que a Comissão quer ser "mais papista que o papa" ao acrescentar novas medidas ao Plano NAFO. Pois, não se pode aceitar uma limitação unilateral das margens de tolerância);

- a garantia de que os TACs podem ser ajustados para cima caso se verifique uma reconstituição desta unidade populacional.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. O relatório do colega Kristensen toca um assunto que é sem dúvida fundamental para Portugal. Votei favoravelmente este relatório que trata de questões ligadas à pesca, numa área onde os navios comunitários que operam são quase exclusivamente portugueses e espanhóis.

Consejo Europeo - RC-B6-0386/2005

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Lamentavelmente, a maioria do Parlamento Europeu insiste em não ter em conta a crise de confiança entre os cidadãos e as instituições europeias, de que os recentes referendos sobre o ex-projecto da dita constituição europeia, na França e na Holanda, deram provas.

Assim, continuam a insistir em propostas como a revisão da estratégia de Lisboa, em que se inserem as propostas de directiva Bolkenstein, organização do tempo de trabalho e acesso ao mercado dos serviços portuários, em vez de exigir que a Comissão e o Conselho as retirem.

Igualmente apoiam a decisão do Conselho sobre as orientações para o emprego que, lamentavelmente, esqueceram a igualdade de direitos e oportunidades entre homens e mulheres, designadamente no acesso ao emprego, nos salários e na promoção profissional.

Também continuam a insistir em projectos como o Pacto de Estabilidade

e a flexibilidade laboral, o que rejeitamos.

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), par écrit. – La vraie crise qui mine l'Europe est le chômage, la précarité et la déstabilisation des services publics.

Les peuples, se sont rappelé aux bons souvenirs de leurs dirigeants. Ceux qui ont voté NON en France demandent une réorientation profonde de la construction européenne et une renégociation du traité... La pause doit être utilisée à cette démarche. La première exigence est sociale: créer de la croissance et de l'emploi sans "flexibiliser" les conditions de travail sans tirer vers le bas notre modèle social. Or, les lignes directrices pour la croissance et l'emploi adoptées lors de ce Sommet vont totalement à rebours de cet objectif.

Alors que les salariés demandent des garanties et l'arrêt de l'ultralibéralisme, "on continue comme avant".

Il eut fallu retirer la directive Bolkestein, et celle sur l'aménagement du temps de travail et proposer en lieu et place un traité social. Le conseil est sourd à l'attente des peuples.

Pour sortir de l'impasse budgétaire il faut accroître le budget européen au service de la relance et de la cohésion.

Tant que le budget dépendra de recettes des Etats, les blocages seront plus forts que l'intérêt général. L'alternative d'un impôt européen, un emprunt européen.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), pisno. Uznesenie o výsledku zasadania Európskej rady ( Brusel 16 - 17. jún 2005) som nemohla podporiť z dôvodu jeho prílišnej formálnosti s použitím všeobecných úradníckych fráz. Je skoncipované zložitou byrokratickou rečou bez akejkoľvek vypovedacej hodnoty. Jeho jednotlivé body nie sú jasnými a pochopiteľnými formuláciami, ktoré by ponúkli zrozumiteľné odpovede a východiská zo zložitej situácie, do ktorej sa Európa dostala po dvoch neúspešných referendách o ústavnej zmluve a následne aj neschválením rozpočtu na roky 2007 - 2013. Nie sú tu spomenuté základné princípy týkajúce sa vnútorného trhu napr. postoj k smernici o službách. Zabudlo sa na dôležitosť regionálnej politiky a jej štrukturálnych nástrojov nevyhnutných pre postupné odstraňovanie rozdielov medzi vyspelými a zaostávajúcimi regiónmi. Lisabonská stratégia je opäť frázovým zaklínadlom a nehovorí sa tu ako ju treba konečne zrealizovať v praxi. Ak chceme robiť politiku zrozumiteľnú európskemu občanovi musíme zmeniť našu úradnícku rétoriku uznesení na reč zrozumiteľnú občanovi. Iba tak opätovne získame jeho dôveru.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. O facto de ter votado contra a resolução proposta sobre esta matéria não se deve, de modo algum, a qualquer desagrado que me mereça a presidência luxemburguesa do Conselho. Nessa matéria creio que todos podemos verificar como eram justificados os elogios generalizados ao Primeiro-ministro luxemburguês.

Acontece que os factos recentes - a dupla rejeição do Tratado Constitucional por franceses e holandeses e a incapacidade de aprovar as perspectivas financeiras 2007/2013 - não podem passar despercebidos aos parlamentares europeus. A realidade não é um detalhe. NO entanto, quem ler a resolução aprovada acabará por pensar que ou o Parlamento Europeu está distraído, ou presume que os cidadãos estão. Ora, nem uma nem outra são verdadeiras, pelo menos pela minha parte - e pela parte do grupo político a que pertenço.

A crise que a Europa vive exigia que o último Conselho Europeu tivesse sido um momento de particular lucidez, e de significativa compreensão do sentimento dos cidadãos. Lamentavelmente, não foi. Resta a esperança que esta crise seja potenciadora de novas e mais acertadas soluções. Acredito que é possível.

- Informe: Klich (A6-0103/2005)

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark och Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), skriftlig. Den moderata delegationen har i dag röstat för betänkandet om säkerhetsforskning. Vi anser att det är viktigt att utveckla ett strukturerat och ändamålsenligt säkerhetsforskningsprogram i syfte att bland annat garantera EU:s trovärdighet och en kvalificerad underrättelseförmåga inom ramen för den europeiska säkerhets- och försvarspolitiken.

Däremot motsätter vi oss vissa skrivningar i betänkandet, dels dem som gäller budgetanslagen för säkerhetsforskningen som föredraganden kopplar till en procentandel av BNP, dels dem som gäller världsomspännande observation och datainsamling.

  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Betänkandet syftar till att utveckla ett Europeiskt säkerhetsforskningsprogram (ESFP), som ska inledas 2007. Vi är inte principiella motståndare till gemensamma forskningsinsatser på Europanivå, men vi vänder oss emot ESFP:s syfte att bidra till en integrerad europeisk försvarsmarknad. Därför väljer vi att rösta nej till betänkandet i sin helhet.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Trata-se de um relatório de iniciativa do Parlamento Europeu de apoio à criação (até 2007) e ao financiamento comunitário de um "Programa europeu de investigação em matéria de segurança", no quadro da "Política Europeia de Segurança e Defesa" e das denominadas "Estratégia de segurança europeia" e do "Programa de Haia".

Ou seja, aponta-se como objectivo o reforço da investigação na área da recolha e armazenamento de informações, vigilância, espionagem, segurança, "gestão de crises", etc..., como mais uma peça da engrenagem da actual militarização da União Europeia e da sua deriva securitária, sob o pretexto da "luta contra o terrorismo", em cooperação com os EUA.

Daí o voto contra do nosso Grupo.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), por escrito. Face aos últimos acontecimentos mundiais, a questão da segurança tornou-se primordial e os Estados-Membros devem fazer face a novas formas de ameaças à segurança.

No entanto, existe na Europa um claro sub-investimento na investigação e desenvolvimento no sector da defesa. De facto, as despesas com a investigação e desenvolvimento na área da defesa permaneceram inalteradas, ou diminuíram mesmo, ao longo dos últimos dez anos.

Por isso, felicito o colega Klich pela elaboração deste relatório que apoia a proposta da Comissão Europeia de lançar, até 2007, um Programa Europeu de Investigação em Matéria de Segurança (PEIS) que permita dar resposta aos desafios de segurança actuais, contribuindo simultaneamente para o crescimento e a competitividade da economia europeia.

O PEIS deverá contar com a participação de intervenientes relevantes no domínio da investigação na área da segurança e dispor de um financiamento adequado, a fim de assegurar a máxima continuidade temporal possível e os melhores resultados.

  Αθανάσιος Παφίλης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Στην εξυπηρέτηση της ιμπεριαλιστικής πολιτικής της ΕΕ θέτει και τον τομέα της έρευνας η έκθεση εξασφαλίζοντας παράλληλα τη χρηματοδότηση του κεφαλαίου σε αυτόν τον τομέα με τη διάθεση 1 δις ευρώ από τη φορολόγηση των εργαζομένων και λαϊκών στρωμάτων των χωρών μελών της ΕΕ.

Με πρόσχημα την "ασφάλεια" και τις "απειλές" προωθεί την περεταίρω στρατιωτικοποίηση της Ευρώπης, τη βελτίωση της τεχνολογίας για τη στήριξη των επιθετικών ενεργειών και την αναβάθμιση της στρατιωτικής ισχύος της ΕΕ, ώστε από καλύτερες θέσεις να παίρνει μέρος στον ανταγωνισμό με τις ΗΠΑ για τον έλεγχο των αγορών και χωρών. Παράλληλα με τη θέση ότι η διάκριση μεταξύ εσωτερικής και εξωτερικής ασφαλείας είναι δυσχερής, χρησιμοποιεί και την έρευνα για να βελτιώσει την εσωτερική καταστολή κατά του λαϊκού κινήματος στα κράτη μέλη.

Όλα τα συστήματα ακόμη και στο διάστημα, το δορυφορικό σύστημα εντοπισμού θέσης τίθενται στην υπηρεσία του προγράμματος για την έρευνα στον τομέα της ασφάλειας.

Οι Ευρωβουλευτές του ΚΚΕ καταψηφίζουν την έκθεση. Οι λαοί της ΕΕ πρέπει να δυναμώσουν τον αγώνα τους κατά της ΕΕ και την απειθαρχία τους στην ιμπεριαλιστική της πολιτική.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. It is really no progress towards peace that the Klich-Report calls for a minimum annual community budget of €1 billion for armament and so called security research. The Parliament's Resolution is even worse than the Commission proposals. It is preposterous to try and aim to close the gap on armament spending between the EU and the United States. This would mean require the EU to spend still much more each year on armament research.

The EU is becoming more and more militarised. The spending of an additional one billion Euros on armament research would be yet a further step in this direction. In rejecting the Constitutional Treaty, the people of France and the Netherlands also rejected the EU militarisation envisaged in that Treaty. It is a scandal that the protagonists of this militarized EU are simply going ahead with their plans regardless. Instead of pretending to create jobs with huge spending on armaments, the EU should spend more on civil research programs - and not follow in the footsteps of the United States.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. A Europa tem de se habituar à ideia de que a segurança tem um custo e de que a nossa necessidade de segurança justifica o pagamento desse preço. Sem prejuízo das nossas relações e alianças, em particular da nossa parceria atlântica, é forçoso que a Europa invista na segurança dos cidadãos e fazê-lo implica, necessariamente, investir em investigação, capítulo, aliás, no qual a Europa lamentavelmente não se tem mostrado suficientemente empenhada e eficiente.

No contexto mundial em que vivemos, e atentas estas considerações, considero que, no essencial, o relatório aqui em causa tem presentes estas preocupações e defende uma acção que vá de encontro às necessidades referidas. Por essa razão votei favoravelmente.

- Informe: Trautmann (A6-0172/2005)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. Wir leben in einem Zeitalter rasanter technologischer Fortschritte – ebenso rasch entwickelt sich zugleich die Kriminalität weiter. Beispielsweise sind vom jüngsten Diebstahl an Kreditkartendaten möglicherweise rund 800.000 Europäer betroffen. Wenn wir elektronische Gesundheitskarten einführen, könnten diese das nächste Ziel organisierter Banden darstellen. Cyberkriminalität wie illegale Downloads, Spamming, Spyware, Kinderpornografie blühen und nur ein bis zwei Prozent der im Internet begangenen Straftaten werden jemals aufgedeckt.

Besonders erschreckend ist in diesem Zusammenhang die weit verbreitete Unwissenheit. Es gibt immer noch viel zu viele Benutzer, die Opfer von Email-Attacken werden und Trickbetrügern ihre Bankdaten bekannt geben. Mit ihrem guten Glauben öffnen Sie Tür und Tor nicht nur zu sensiblen Daten, sondern oft zum eigenen Bankkonto.

Laut der jüngsten Eurobarometer-Studie haben 40% der österreichischen Eltern keine Ahnung, wo sie Informationen zur sicheren Internetnutzung bekommen und verbotene Inhalte melden können. Aber damit stehen sie nicht allein da: Untersuchungen brachten zu Tage, dass die US-Behörden ebenso wenig wissen, wann sie wem Fälle von Cyber-Kriminalität melden sollten.

Die Fahndung nach Webganoven gleicht der Suche nach der Nadel im Heuhaufen. Daher ist es umso wichtiger, dass wir eine Informationsoffensive starten, damit Benutzer nicht nur Internet-Fallstricke meiden, sondern auch bei der Bekämpfung der Internet-Kriminalität mitwirken können.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente o relatório da colega Trautmann.

Considero que as questões da governança na Internet e os mecanismos de financiamento destas novas tecnologia estão e devem estar no centro das discussões políticas na Europa e no resto do mundo. A importância da Sociedade de Informação para os objectivos da Estratégia de Lisboa resulta de dois eixos: por um lado, a contribuição para a concretização dos objectivos de crescimento económico aliado a uma forte aposta nas novas tecnologias e por outro lado, a necessidade de uma presença forte e consistente internacionalmente de uma Europa que se quer preparar para estar na vanguarda tecnológica.

Julgo que devem ser apoiadas todas as iniciativas que nos coloquem num caminho de intercâmbio de ideias e informações e numa via de desenvolvimento tecnológico que só poderá contribuir para um maior crescimento e desenvolvimento económico da Europa.

31. Korrezzjonijiet tal-votazzjoni: ara l-Minuti

32. Tressiq ta' testi adottati matul is-seduta attwali: ara l-Minuti

33. Dati tas-seduti li jmiss: ara l-Minuti

34. Għeluq tas-seduta

  El Presidente. Declaro interrumpido el período de sesiones del Parlamento Europeo.

(Se levanta la sesión a las 13.10 horas)