Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 26 September 2005 - Strasbourg

11. Priorities for Parliament's work

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, we must offer a very warm welcome today to the observers from Bulgaria and Romania, who are already seated in our Parliament.

Their presence reminds us that, in May of last year, the fifth enlargement of the European Union was left incomplete while we waited for Romania and Bulgaria to complete their accession processes.

It is also good to remember that our Parliament gave its assent to the Treaty of Accession with these countries, which is being ratified by the Member States, and I believe that we are all now expecting their accession actually to take place on the scheduled date, 1 January 2007. I am sure that we will all make every effort, that we will all do everything in our power, including Romania and Bulgaria, to make sure that this becomes a reality.

I would like to say today to our new colleagues that we eagerly await their contributions to our debates, and we wish them every success in their parliamentary work.

Nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, the arrival of our Bulgarian and Romanian colleagues comes at a particularly difficult time for the European Union. On a day-to-day level, the institutions are functioning normally, nothing out of the ordinary is happening in the Union’s everyday life; but the European project is suffering an identity crisis which we cannot ignore.

According to some people whom we have heard over recent days, the European Union could do without a vision of its future, and it would be sufficient for the Union simply to improve the functioning of its markets and to carry on enlarging. For some people, that would be sufficient. I believe, however, that the problem is more profound. The problem relates to the political meaning of the European project and its geographical dimension. Today, both aspects, the political meaning and the geographical dimension, are faced with deadlock and the European Parliament must make an enormous effort in order to help resolve it. Our Institution must contribute in every possible way to resolving this situation.

Ladies and gentlemen, a little more than a year ago I explained to you the priorities for our parliamentary work. Believe me, it would have been difficult for us to imagine back then, in September of last year, what our current circumstances would be. It would have been difficult to imagine the situation we are in today. I therefore believe that we should review what has happened this year and reconsider our objectives for the parliamentary year ahead of us.

Please allow me to ask you collectively which of the things we proposed a year ago have been achieved, and how we are going to approach the parliamentary year now beginning during this critical phase in European integration.

Also a year ago, we were joined by new Members. A year ago we received our fellow Members from the 10 new Member States and at that point we asked ourselves, amidst the joy of reunification, whether we were going to be able to work together, to combine such different parliamentary cultures; whether we were going to be able to rise to the challenge, a challenge unique in the world, of working in twenty different languages, a number which still does not sufficiently reflect the Union’s linguistic diversity. I believe that one year later, an intense year in every respect, we can say that this challenge has been met and that the Union’s enlarged Parliament is operating satisfactorily. I would like to thank everybody for their contribution in this success.

Also a year ago, I told you that I was determined to resolve the complex and sensitive issue of the Statute of Members. You will remember that everybody agreed that this was a priority, and I was very eager to try to find a solution to it. Well, today we can say: mission accomplished.

Thanks to the invaluable contribution of the Luxembourg Presidency, in July the Council expressed its agreement with the text approved by Parliament, which I will sign next Wednesday. This agreement is very important to our institution, since the absence of such an agreement had been poisoning our public image for a long time.

I would now like to point out to you that, with regard to our operational rules, we must set two objectives: the rules relating to parliamentary assistants and the reform of the financial regulation so that the Union can manage its resources more efficiently. There is broad consensus in this regard. Without prejudice to good management, the Union needs a financial regulation that enables it to operate more efficiently.

We already have a draft that the Commission has communicated to us. I propose that we set the objective that this new financial regulation should enter into force together with the 2007 budget.

A year ago too, we were preparing for the investiture of the new Commission and you will recall that that was a turbulent period. I believe we can say today, however, that the European Parliament has gained in maturity, legitimacy, credibility and public visibility, and also that our cooperation with the Commission rests upon solid foundations.

Following that rocky investiture, we negotiated a framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission. That agreement enables us to make considerable progress in the field of information and democratic control. I am pleased about that too. In application of the agreement, the Conference of Presidents will receive Mr Barroso in two days’ time to hear about the proposals that the Commission has announced for this year directly from him.

A year ago too the tragic fate of the Beslan hostages overshadowed our plenary session. At that time I insisted on the need to push ahead with the European area of security and justice, by actively promoting an anti-terrorist strategy. A year on, however, and the barbarism of the terrorists is continuing. London has been the latest victim on European soil, but Iraq is a victim every day.

Today the terrorist threat is greater and it will not disappear for the time being. It will test European society’s capacity to tackle it while respecting our democratic values. The balance between freedom and security will therefore be a permanent element in our debate. It was during the last part-session, when we heard Minister Clarke, and it will continue to be so in the future.

Furthermore, we are all aware that terrorism blurs the distinction between internal affairs and external policy and that today, whether we like it or not, it appears to be directly related to immigration problems. We must therefore combat terrorism together with our neighbours and partners in the Islamic world, in particular in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to pause here for a moment to tell you that one of the great issues for the future of the European Union is its relationship with the Muslim world. Perhaps the most important issue. I propose that we make use of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, which is now being chaired by the European Parliament, to develop this relationship in a positive manner, preventing the terrorist threat and the tensions created by immigration from leading to the Islamophobia that the terrorists would see as their greatest success.

A year ago I also spoke to you about two issues that were fundamental at that time and which today are even more important. I am referring, as you know, to the Constitutional Treaty and the financial perspective. In both cases, Parliament has done what we proposed doing.

With regard to the Constitutional Treaty, we hosted a great debate that ended with majority support for the Treaty. Thirteen countries have ratified it, but the French and Dutch noes have led the Council, as you know, to establish a period of reflection, to which I will refer in a moment.

With regard to the financial perspective, we have been able to draw up an ambitious and reasonable report by means of an ad hoc committee that enabled us to coordinate all the relevant points of view. As a result, our Parliament has a position of its own on the basis of which it can analyse those of the other institutions. We know what we want and we have said it. With regard to our position, we must assess those of the Commission, which we also know, and those of the Council, which we are awaiting, because the Council has not been able to reach an agreement. I very much fear that that was not due to the problems of the Constitution, but to a worrying lack of Community spirit and an increasing devaluation of the idea of European solidarity.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have come this far by following this path. What more must we do from now on and how must we do it?

In my view, the most urgent and most important thing – at least the most urgent – is the financial perspective. It would be good to remember that an agreement in the Council is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition if the Union is to have this multi-annual financial framework.

I have said this to members of the Council on several occasions: an agreement amongst you will be of no use unless it is acceptable to Parliament, because this is an interinstitutional agreement which involves the three Institutions.

I would take this opportunity to urge the Council to do its duty and to reach an agreement during the UK Presidency, because afterwards it will be too late, or much more complicated.

From the brilliant speech with which it began its term in office, it appeared that the UK Presidency had ideas for achieving an agreement on a better structure for Community spending. The European Parliament would point out that it is urgent to turn these ideas into reality.

In the meantime, we must continue to work on the legislative programmes. I am aware that drawing up these programmes without knowing what resources are allocated to each spending programme complicates our work, but it does not make it impossible. I must inform you that the Commission and the Council have insisted that we continue to work on these legislative programmes, because they are essential to the implementation of the 2007 budget. Over the coming days, the Conference of Presidents will have to decide how to do it and call upon the competent committees to act in a coordinated fashion in accordance with their guidelines.

Ladies and gentlemen – if I may speak more formally for a moment, while the British Prime Minister is here, and I thank him for his dedication to Parliament – the Union needs the financial perspective for 2007-2013. However, something that it needs even more than that, something that is essential to the Union, is a budget that can be implemented from 1 January 2007. Not to have one would be a serious problem.

From now on, therefore, we must anticipate the possibility that we may have to begin to draw up the 2007 annual budget before there is an agreement on the financial perspective. That possibility exists. From now on I would like to assure you that Parliament will do its duty, as laid down in the Treaties, in order to guarantee that, with or without a financial perspective, the Union has a budget that can be implemented for 2007.

It would be a novel situation, but if it arose we should face it in our proper democratic fashion. Then we have the other great fundamental issue: the future of the Union and its relationship with the Constitutional Treaty.

As you know, the Council has agreed to a period of reflection until next spring; and that is what it is, a period of reflection. It is not a pause, a word which you will note does not appear anywhere in the Council’s conclusions. It did, but it is not in the final conclusions. In fact, other countries have continued their ratification processes since that Council, including, by referendum, Luxembourg.

It is clear, however, that, while we reflect, for some time we are going to carry on working with what we have: the Treaty of Nice. There is no crisis of day-to-day operation. There is no legal vacuum. That is an obvious thing to say, but in politics it sometimes makes sense to state the obvious. There is good reason for pointing this out because I am going on to say that the future problems that the Constitutional Treaty was intended to resolve remain. Those problems are still there.

Resolving the Union’s institutional problems is not a merely cosmetic issue. We need institutions that are appropriately designed so that they operate effectively.

Everybody can now see that there was, and there remains, no plan B as an alternative to the Constitutional Treaty. There is no plan B, but amongst all of us we have coined a plan D: ‘D’ for democracy and debate. It is precisely democracy and debate that define the essence of a Parliament.

This Parliament, therefore, in which the last great democratic debate on the Union took place with speeches by Mr Juncker and Mr Blair, this Parliament which witnessed that great moment of parliamentary democracy, must continue in this direction and – why not? – urge the Heads of State or Government of the countries in which the results of the referenda were particularly significant to continue that debate which was started so brilliantly.

Furthermore, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is in the process of drawing up a report on this period of reflection and will subsequently present its proposals to us.

Ladies and gentlemen, you will remember that a year ago I believed that the ratifications were going to be a decisive time for talking to the Europeans about Europe. A great opportunity to talk to the Europeans about Europe, I said, but the truth is that I never thought that it would be such an opportunity to talk to the Europeans about Europe.

After what has happened, we must promote a great conversation amongst Europeans throughout Europe, a decentralised conversation of course, in cooperation with the national Parliaments of course, but also involving the views of the whole of civil society. We have enough time. Let us do it, perhaps less passionately than during the referendum campaigns, but with more and better information.

I have just received a letter from President Barroso, and I have held working meetings with the Vice-President, who is here at the moment, in which he proposes that we work together in this field. We are going to do so, of course, both with the Commission and with the Council, because we are all convinced that the Europe we are going to construct will be neither technocratic nor bureaucratic and Parliament must therefore fully demonstrate its raison d’être.

Please allow me now to return to our legislative work. I believe that our results are positive. We must, however, place more emphasis on the added value that Europe offers the Europeans and we will have the opportunity to do so when we debate the REACH Directive – the type of directive, incidentally, that the Commission says it will never again send – and the directives on services, working time, air safety and railways.

Then there are security and justice matters, and also Turkey, because a year ago we proposed giving our opinion on Turkey. We did so.

Our position had a definite political impact. This Wednesday we will once again study the situation on the eve of the start of the negotiations. We are undoubtedly at an historic moment, and Parliament will have to give its opinion on the Protocol to the EU-Turkey Association Agreement, which has led to the problems of which we are all aware and which the UK Presidency is working to resolve.

Ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament has an essential role to play in terms of defining the balance between liberty and security in the fight against terrorism. If Europe has to have an anti-terrorist policy that redefines the relationship between freedom and security, this Parliament must be fully involved.

That was laid down in the Constitutional Treaty, with significant advances in terms of our Parliament’s role in this field. Without a Constitutional Treaty, however, it is a positive sign that at the last informal Council of Home Affairs Ministers, the Council and the Commission agreed that Parliament should participate fully in the definition of this balance. If that is the case, and I hope that it is, I believe that it would be an excellent demonstration of cooperation amongst the three Institutions and the best way to define an anti-terrorist policy that is fully accepted by European society.

I would like finally to refer to the issue of quality and the relevance of European legislation. What legislation we produce, its quality, the issues it deals with, its relevance, how good it is: ‘better regulation’ is a fashionable issue. It is not a new issue: every Commission states that it wants to simplify the acquis communautaire. I believe that this is the third time, at least, that a Commission has said that that is what is going to happen.

As far as the present situation is concerned, the President of the Commission has recently stated that he intends to withdraw several dozen legislative proposals. From a procedural point of view, I have reminded the Commission of its obligation, according to our Framework Agreement, to inform Parliament before withdrawing those proposals and to do so without treating this obligation to inform merely as a meaningless formality. We do not yet know which texts they are – I am sure that President Barroso will tell us – but I must point out right now that, depending on the stage they are at in their passage through the Council and Parliament, their withdrawal could raise legal problems, which Parliament would like to resolve in a positive fashion. That is what I have to say with regard to procedure.

With regard to content, it is true that the European Union sometimes deals with many issues in great detail. As well as trying not to legislate in excessive detail, however, it would also be good to consider the question of whether the European building is not lacking certain main beams that are needed to ensure the solidity of the whole structure. There is no question that measures are needed to simplify legislation, to assess its impact and to analyse how texts are transposed. I am told, for example, that there are currently 56 directives regulating the labelling of products. If it is true that there are 56 directives regulating the labelling of products in Europe, then that batch of legislation should be consolidated.

In that respect, the UK Presidency has called an extraordinary Summit for the end of October, at which I will have the honour of representing our Institution, whose participation has been increasing, and I believe that that is something we should be pleased about.

We do not yet know the agenda for that Summit, but there is no doubt that the issue of the famous European social model will be one of the main issues being debated. That social model, which for some people does not exist and for others takes many forms, is a priority issue for our debate, because it represents no less than the debate on European society’s response to economic globalisation. This is absolutely fundamental to the future of our society.

The work of our committees will be very important for that, as will the debate that we will hold in plenary in the presence of the British Prime Minister, who will come here to hold a debate with Parliament on the eve of the Summit.

Furthermore, I must tell you that throughout all my journeys this year I have noticed that the Union’s foreign policy has ceased to be exclusively the domain of the governments; that on all my trips to non-EU countries I have noted that parliamentary diplomacy is increasing in maturity and responsibility, in particular thanks to the excellent cooperation with the Council and the Commission. I must also tell you that everywhere I go I am told that Europe is needed and I often hear the complaint that its presence is insufficient. Perhaps non-Europeans feel the need for Europe more than we do ourselves.

Ladies and gentlemen, when analysing the democracy that was emerging in the United States, a democracy like the one we intend to create, a supranational democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville said that nations, like men, only reach a greater destiny through dialogue and political debate. I would like to urge you to bring this spirit alive in the debate on the future of Europe, in our respective States and in the European Institutions.

(Applause)

  Hans-Gert Poettering, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by extending, on behalf of our group, a warm welcome to our friends from Bulgaria and Romania and to assure them that we look forward to what will be a process of mutual learning. Those of us who are already in this House will have a lot to learn from Bulgaria and Romania on how matters progress on those fronts, while they, our new observers, will have much to learn from the way we work. An understanding attitude on the part of both sides will bring us successes in which we can all share.

You, Mr President, made reference to an identity crisis, and I welcome the opportunity that your speech gives us to take inventory today. You also made reference to the Constitution. I am convinced in the depths of my being that the only way we can respond to this identity crisis in which we in Europe find ourselves is if we succeed in expressing the values that unite us – even across party political boundary lines – in the shape of European constitutional law. It is for that reason that our Constitution – and I am thinking particularly of its second part in which these values are described – must not be set aside, but must remain on the agenda, for the fact is that we need these values, and it is on them that our common future depends. It is for that reason that the negative response from France and the Netherlands must not be allowed to be the last word. We must of course set the right timeframe and be discriminating in deciding when to move forward, and so we need to join with the Commission in considering this. Neither of us must allow the impression to be given that the Constitution is in some sense no longer on the agenda; even now, we are giving thought to how to give tangible form to this Constitution and its essential elements.

I also think it would be a good idea – and I believe that the President is thinking along similar lines – if we were, from time to time, irrespective of which country currently holds the presidency of the European Union, to invite to this House Heads of Government for the purpose of engaging with them in a debate on the future of Europe.

We are of course perturbed to learn that many members of the public regard this Europe of ours as a very distant thing. There is no doubt, Vice-President Wallström, that this is in part a public relations matter, and, as such, one of your responsibilities, but it is in essence about the legislative work that we do, and so let me say on behalf of our group that the Commission’s approach – that we make fewer laws – is, in principle, the right one. What we do, though, must be good; it must be ‘better lawmaking’. The Commission is approaching things from the right angle, but I urge you not to circumvent the procedures agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement, for that is to go down a blind alley. While we can go along with the substance of what you want, I very strongly recommend that you stick to the procedures for consultation with the European Parliament before you pass formal resolutions. If you want to come to a decision as early as this coming Tuesday, it is not enough that Commissioner Verheugen – and I have no idea why it should be him – should unofficially inform the groups today; what is needed instead is constructive institutional exchange between the Commission and the European Parliament.

One of the most important matters to be considered will be, no doubt, the competitiveness of Europe. We agree with Mr Barroso that the debate on the Constitution must not be allowed to distract us from this issue, which, along with the question of how we construct a social Europe, is at the heart of everything. We also need to engage in closer dialogue with the parliaments at the national level, for division between us and them would be a tragedy for the European Union. If we want to lead the European Union into a bright future, we will have to seek ways of doing so together.

I would also like – and with this I shall close, not least because I see that the Deputy Prime Minister is here in his capacity as President-in-Office of the Council – to address the issue of how we should proceed as regards data and the combating of terrorism. We have heard that there are governments that want to deal with this only by enacting framework resolutions, which amounts to excluding the European Parliament. The British Home Secretary, Mr Clarke, has said that the UK Presidency of the Council is prepared to involve this House if we manage to come up with something definite within a reasonable period of time. Speaking on behalf of our group, I can tell him that that is what we want to do, as terrorism needs to be combated. I can assure you of that. We also, however, want Parliament involved in order that there may be a proper legislative framework, and in order that it is not brought into being by the national governments alone. It is with this in mind that I hope that the Council, the Commission and we in this Parliament will work together well, for if we do not, this European Union will find itself in still greater difficulties. We are working together for the future of the European Union, and it is a matter of shared obligation that we do so.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, many thanks for what you said about the general direction of our work over the coming year. I extend a warm welcome to our friends from Romania and Bulgaria, no matter what their political allegiance: a particularly warm welcome to those who belong to my own group, but a welcome nonetheless to those of differing views, coupled with the hope that we will work well together in this House for the good of the European Union. What I also ask of them is that they work hard and debate hard in this House, for the European Union has need of that too.

It is in this Parliament that European democracy happens, so let me pick up what my good friend Mr Poettering said. I do indeed share his view that we cannot accept the Commission’s way of passing information around, which involves it, through the medium of Commissioner Verheugen, telling the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung what it wants to withdraw, followed by Mr Barroso, the following day, telling the international press what he is withdrawing, so that Parliament has, to this day, not been officially informed, even though the Commission is obliged to do so by the Interinstitutional Agreement.

Parliament is surely entitled, though, to know what is going on in the secret corridors of power in this building. One opportunity to tell it would have been last Thursday in the Conference of Presidents, when Mr Barroso could have done the job. He was, of course, invited, but said he could not be there. I was then told that the reason why he would not be there was that Mr Poettering was not there. Well, I said, there you go: if Mr Poettering is not there, then there is no point! Looking at the newspapers today, I now learn where Mr Barroso was last Thursday, when his absence was unavoidable. The Chairman of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats may well get worked up about our not being informed, but we could have been last Thursday, had not Mr Poettering, together with President Barroso, been attending an event in Lisbon staged by the European People’s Party’s think-tanks. You should not go complaining to the Commission if it is you yourself who ensure that the appointments intended for us to be informed cannot be kept.

I am not aiming these remarks at Mr Poettering, for that is not his job. I have some sympathy for him, but none for the President of the Commission. Commissioner Wallström, you can tell Mr Barroso from me that I will not accept a situation in which the President of the Commission tells the international press what he intends to do, but not the European Parliament. That is unacceptable!

Nor can I see it as acceptable that a President of the Commission, should, in a press conference on the occasion of his return from holiday – which must have been a long one, for I have heard nothing from him for a long time – say that there was no point in concentrating on the Constitution, which was going to be a long time coming anyway, and that now was the time for us to focus on something else: that from someone whose task it is to contend for this same Constitution!

I really do wonder what the President of the Commission’s attitude is towards those states that actually have ratified the Constitution, or towards those currently in the process of doing so. What are they, faced with a Commission President such as this one, actually meant to think?

I have no quibble with the substance of this; it is indeed the case that we have to make a better job of making laws, and that superfluous ones need to be withdrawn. With that I wholeheartedly agree, but let me make it abundantly clear, Mr President, that the work programme you have announced for the coming year cannot be gone through in the same way as its predecessors. It is all about cooperation between the European institutions, between the Commission and Parliament in particular, but what I then expect of the Commission is that it should meet Parliament halfway and make Parliament – rather than a press conference or the Commission’s briefings in Brussels – the venue for debate about the future of Europe.

That is the only way that we will reach any sort of agreement, not least on the Financial Perspective. Let me just remind you that, between Parliament’s figures – our proposals, in other words – and those that the Summit failed to adopt, by which I mean the 1.07% compromise that was on the table there, there is a gulf of several billions, but between the demands the Commission makes on the Financial Perspective and what the Council actually wants there is a yawning chasm amounting to double that amount again. Any President of the Commission who wanted to implement his own ambitious programme ought, after the failure of the Financial Perspective, to have made a scene about it and denounced it as a road to ruin for the European Union!

What I am criticising, Mr President, is the Commission’s far too lengthy absence from the debate on the Financial Perspective and the Constitution. While wholeheartedly endorsing your proposals, we also hope that the Commission – and its President in particular – will soon get back on the playing field.

(Applause)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of my Group, I would like to welcome President-in-Office Prescott, clearly keener to enjoy the company of former colleagues than to join his party's bean feast in Brighton.

I, too, welcome our new friends from Romania and Bulgaria. I am sorry that they join us at a less than happy time. Europe is in the doldrums: its Constitution has suffered a setback, its budget in stalemate, its economy stagnating. It seeks a fresh breeze to lift its sails.

Previously, Parliaments looked to the Commission to take the lead: as the guardian of the Treaties; as the motor of integration, the initiator of ideas. This Parliament must challenge the Member States. Is Germany ready to reform? Will Italy deal with its deficit? Will Tony Blair back up his fine words with full British participation in Europe's projects? And will Paris and The Hague show leadership of their people? Now more than ever, Parliament and Commission must work together to rescue the European project, to unite the Union.

Five years ago in Lisbon, the Member States agreed an agenda. Five months ago in Brussels, the Commission set out a new strategy for jobs and growth. How many weeks must we wait for consensus in the Council, and when we reach consensus, for the courage to carry it through?

We have read of a bonfire of regulations, doubtless long overdue. But permit me a word on process. Better enforcement of laws: that is for the Commission and the Court. Fewer, more focused new laws: that is for the Commission, too. But decisions to scrap directives and to improve scrappy directives are a process involving Parliament, and we expect a say in withdrawing or re-writing laws.

(Applause)

Commissioner Wallström, our involvement is your accountability. Our approval is your legitimacy.

I fear you will not agree the budget under Britain's Presidency. But use your public tour of Europe, together with Mr Barroso, to get agreement in national capitals for the financing the Union needs. We need more champions like Airbus. We will not have those with a cap of 1%. We need to invest in upskilling; to provide for lifelong learning; to boost research and development – no way on 1%. Commissioner Wallström, do now the tour you should have done in June. Set the agenda or the Member States will set it for you.

Europe's Constitution bears fine signatures of presidents and prime ministers. Yet some of our citizens declined to sign it off. Arguably the recipe is not quite right. Possibly, people suspect it was signed in bad faith. Certainly its signatories show precious little respect for the institutions they have established. For the present, it is in cold storage. So, yes, Mr Barroso, let us get the politics right, and getting them right probably means getting them centre.

But, where the Constitution is concerned, do not rush to perform the burial rites. To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumours of its death may be exaggerated. Let us use this period of reflection to call Chirac and Balkenende before this House to tell us how they propose to proceed; hold hearings with those who have not yet ratified; confront the Member States with their responsibilities. Together, let us show that our Union meets the needs of its people: enhancing security without threatening liberty; building the foundation for jobs without undermining solidarity; gaining EU added value without diminishing identity. If this is our agenda, some time from now our institutions and our institutional plans should once again command from our citizens the support and dedication they deserve.

(Applause)

  Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen from Romania and Bulgaria, everybody has warmly welcomed you, our group warmly welcomes you and, as you can see, you have arrived at just the right time. Your situation is, in fact, peculiar. This Parliament is clearly furious, or at any rate is if we are to believe the group chairmen who have voiced their opinion against the Commission, against such and such a person.

Mr Borrell, you said that the moment Mr Blair spoke in this House was a great moment for democracy. What happened? He gave a speech, he left and since then the Presidency has gone quiet. ‘They’ no longer exist at all, we do not know what ‘they’ do: this is not a great moment for democracy.

(He turned towards Mr Watson, who asked him: ‘What about the French Presidency?’)

We are not talking here about the French Presidency; for the time being, we have a UK Presidency. There is a UK Presidency, it should preside over matters and it is not doing so. We are therefore entitled, as Parliament, to point out that it is doing nothing. That is the least a Parliament can do. Full stop.

I would like, at this point, to make a very simple remark. If Mr Barroso thinks this or that about the Constitution, let him come and say so to Parliament. We will debate it with him and we will give him a dressing-down. Let him come and speak about the Constitution to Parliament. If Mr Barroso believes that laws exist that should be withdrawn, let him come and say so! Moreover, on this issue, Mr Poettering, you cannot say that, as regards the content, you agree with Mr Barroso: we do not know what Mr Barroso wants. You can say that, as regards the format, you agree, but personally speaking, as regards the content, I do not know what the Commission wants to do.

With regard to better regulation, let us take the example of Mrs Reding, who wants to create European television, television in the style of Mr Berlusconi, with advertising everywhere. Is that better regulation? No, it is worse regulation and we do not want it. We know what its content is. Let Mrs Reding come and propose her new directive on television, and you will see that what the Commission wants will never gain majority support in this House.

Matters are therefore very straightforward. The Commission makes proposals and formulates ideas. It goes into recess, it asks itself some serious questions, it returns and it formulates ideas. Let it come to Parliament to present its ideas. When we have a directive, we put it to the vote: it is accepted or it is not accepted. When we want to withdraw a directive, we vote on the proposal: it is accepted or it is not accepted.

We take things one by one and whether it is a question of better regulation, of neoliberal regulation, of socialist regulation or of no regulation at all, what matters is the content.

I have had enough of those people who continually make proposals in the European area without knowing whom to address themselves to. We want a Commission that is a Commission proposing European laws. We want a Parliament. We want a Council that looks after its affairs. When there is a Presidency, let it preside over matters without other distractions. If Mr Blair likes to play cricket and drink tea, then that is his choice but, as President, he has other matters to attend to. He has to make proposals so that Europe moves forward and, for the time being, Europe is not moving forward, and it is because of this Presidency.

(Applause)

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Prescott, Mrs Wallström, together with my group, I gladly endorse all the words of welcome that have just been addressed to the observers from Romania and Bulgaria. If we do not want our words of welcome to be mere lip service, however, we must have the courage to accept all the implications of our choices. The now fast-approaching prospect – for which my group has, moreover, given its full support - of these two countries entering the European Union in fact only makes a genuine change in direction for the EU’s economic, monetary, budgetary, fiscal and trade policy all the more urgent and decisive. With 15 Member States, this was necessary; with 25 or 27 Member States, this becomes essential.

Mr President, you have spoken of an identity crisis. I believe you are right. To overcome it, political choices have to take precedence over market requirements, because if, in the name of international competition, we are content with adapting ourselves to globalisation as it is today, then there is quite simply no room either for social issues or for solidarity. With the mass unemployment, rapid growth in job insecurity, large-scale poverty and glaring inequalities that we are experiencing, it would be politically irresponsible and socially explosive to remain with set ideas about free competition, restrictions on public spending, social and fiscal dumping and, the icing on the cake, miserly budgets. As the elected representatives of our fellow citizens, we have a duty to bear witness to the profound uneasiness that, in one form or another, is being expressed throughout the whole of Europe. What can Parliament undertake to do in the coming months to send out to Europeans the positive signals they are waiting for? I would put forward three proposals.

Firstly, we are going to be judged on our votes on a whole range of draft directives. As of this week, the one aimed at totally liberalising rail transport and, in the next few weeks, the deeply symbolic Bolkestein Directive, which Mr Barroso has been very careful not to throw out with the others. These will be followed by the texts on regional transport, port services and working time, without forgetting the opinions that we will have to provide on the negotiations at the WTO and, in particular, on the General Agreement on Trade in Services. If we want to satisfy expectations, we would be wise, in each case, to adopt a clearly anti-liberal and very demanding stance on public services.

Secondly, we should take a number of significant political initiatives on major issues of civilisation. One single example: war and peace. In order to express our rejection of war, and particularly of the involvement of EU countries in such a venture, let us invite to Parliament Mrs Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq, whose cry of pain, truth and humanity is moving opinion on both sides of the Atlantic.

Thirdly and finally, and in conjunction with the first two areas, let us contribute to giving our fellow citizens their freedom of speech. Let us organise debates by all means, but let us make them genuine, uncensored debates in the 27 Member States of the enlarged Union on what ought to change in the Union in order to breathe life back into the European dream.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I welcome our friends from Bulgaria and Romania. They will be warmly received by this ever-expanding European empire.

I would say this to them: although you are not elected, you will be treated as full members of the European political elite. You will be entitled to the very generous daily allowance; you will find the chauffeur service at your disposal; there will be an endless round of breakfasts, lunches, dinners and drinks receptions. After all that, with your expanded waistlines, the plan is that you go back to your home countries and tell people that all is well with this club that you have agreed to join.

As Marx said – and I mean Groucho Marx, not Karl Marx – 'I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member'. As far as the EU is concerned that is pretty sound advice, because this is a club whose accounts have not been signed off for the last ten years. This is a club, as you heard from the group leaders earlier, that is treating the voters of France and the Netherlands with absolute contempt as it tries to impose the provisions of a Constitution that should be dead. It is a club that will take away your very rights to govern yourselves and, sadly, is increasingly beginning to resemble the very political system from which you have just escaped. You will hear barracking from those who live on this European Union and who earn far more here than they would ever be worth in the commercial world.

You are here as observers, so just have a look around. What are we doing here today? What a nonsense that we are spending EUR 200 million a year of taxpayers' money on the monthly jaunt to Strasbourg. Have a look tomorrow and on Wednesday and Thursday at the absolutely farcical voting system here and realise that whatever Mr Barroso said last week about deregulation, less regulation and the sixty legislative acts they intend to withdraw, there have been some 2 000 legislative instruments passed in the short period since 1 July, when the British took over the Presidency of the Council.

Please look and go back and tell your people the truth. The ten Member States that joined last year all had referendums in their countries. I understand there is no intention to hold referendums in Romania and Bulgaria. Do not those people deserve the chance at least to vote in a referendum and have a debate? Would it not be a huge, historic mistake to railroad those people into this failing European Union without first telling them the truth? The British people were lied to 30 years ago about this European club. Your people deserve better than that.

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Prescott and Commissioner Wallström for their presence here today. I would also like to thank Mr Cohn-Bendit for devoting so much attention to me, as always.

What we have seen here today is the ability of an institution such as ours to raise our voices in grave concern and yet come up with no solution. Because, ultimately, if we really want to respond to what is occurring in the European Union of today, we must first recognise that, whatever crisis we may perceive, the people out there do not see it as a crisis. For 90% of the people, the European Union does not represent a positive image of relevance to them. It is seen as being interfering, over-burdensome, over-arching and, indeed, uncaring when it comes people's everyday concerns.

It is important to be realistic when we consider the number of issues that our organisation can address within its rules. I heard talk here today of how wrong it was of President Barroso to mention that the Commission was going to drop 'x' number of directives, or that it was going to reduce the number of directives in force. The President of our own Parliament said here today that there are 56 different directives dealing with the sale and production of goods for supply and for services. There are 16 individual directives dealing with the purchase, marketing and presentation of fertiliser for sale. Surely, they can all be brought into a single directive. Maybe there is a difference in language and interpretation and that what the President of the Commission meant to say was consolidation, or codification, which happens in every single government.

There is no reason why every single institution should not take a hard look at itself to determine what the most important issues to be tackled are and how legislation can be improved and made more relevant to the people.

The challenges facing us today are not about the distant future, or even the failed ideologies of the past. The challenges for us today are to ensure that we can create a proper structure for Europe in the 21st century. Funding is a core issue and there must be agreement on the financial perspective. Member States must make a payment towards the central budget to ensure that we can assist those countries most in need, and to ensure that we can continue to drive forward Europe as a dynamic, innovative and creative centre.

We must also try to ensure that, in so doing, we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There have been those who in the recent past have sought to link the common agricultural policy to the financial perspective. That was a mistake and it is to be hoped that there will now be a retreat from that position. Likewise it is important that we in this Parliament view our role responsibly and that, when we do not like or agree with legislation, we do not flunk the decision – as we did with the computer-implemented inventions directive, as we are trying to do with the services directive, and as we have done with many other proposed directives in the past. Our role as legislators is to legislate. That requires tough decisions. That means that there will be differences between us in this House. Those differences are not of a personal nature, but in what we see as the best vision for the future.

Finally, when we speak about an area of freedom, security and justice, it is justice which must be first and foremost among those aims and ideals, because, unless we can guarantee people that their individual rights and freedoms are protected, then we will have failed in our first duty as legislators, namely, to ensure that the laws that we pass not only protect the common good, but do not adversely affect the minority.

  Jean-Marie Le Pen (NI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, last but not least I would like to take my turn in welcoming our new colleagues from Romania and Bulgaria. They will, I hope, restore to the French language and culture a little of the lustre it has lost here as successive enlargements have taken place, in particular with the accession of countries from Northern Europe and Central and Eastern Europe. I am not forgetting notable exceptions such as our late fellow Member from Poland, Filip Adwent.

I welcome, in particular, our five colleagues and friends from the Romania Mare party in the great country of Romania and our Bulgarian colleague from the Attack party. They have come as observers to the European Parliament at a time when Turkey, on 3 October 2005, will be starting its accession talks, even though its accession was one of the reasons why the Constitution was rejected, and without it having acknowledged the Republic of Cyprus and, furthermore, without it wanting to do so. I believe that, with 10% of its population of Turkish origin, Bulgaria is particularly sensitive to this major event.

May our colleagues know that they can count on our support in the European Parliament to defend the Europe of our native lands in the face of destructive globalisation and the flood of migrants. I note with interest the death knell that Mr Barroso, President of the European Commission, has just sounded to the defunct European Constitution. As a rational democrat, he has learned lessons from the French and Dutch referenda and scrapped this freedom-annihilating text. For once, law comes close to morality. The people’s opinion is superior to that of the technocrats, in spite of the various kinds of pressure being exerted by the great professional consciences.

As regards the financial perspectives for 2007-2013, the Franco-British battle over the rebate and the CAP budget is in danger of continuing unless the Community budget is increased beyond 1% of GDP to meet the needs of the CEECs. On that issue, we will denounce any withdrawal or climb-down from Mr Chirac and the French Government regarding the CAP. As loyal allies of the Americans, the British have but two objectives during their six-month Presidency: to get Turkey’s accession under way and to ensure that the much-vaunted ‘Bolkestein’ Directive on services is adopted. We will oppose them both.

Mr Chirac addressed the European Commission, quite shamelessly, to request its intervention in the Hewlett Packard affair, with its 1 240 compulsory redundancies. He publicly humiliated himself and France along with him. It is not up to the Commission, in fact, to intervene in the internal management of businesses. It is only natural that methods of protecting French economic and social interests should be decided in Paris and not in Brussels and Geneva.

Only the 2007 French presidential election, coming in the wake of the bombshell events of 29 May 2005, will mark the genuine break with Euro-internationalism and the spirit of renunciation. It is a break that all genuine Europeans are waiting for. This will be the return to national ideas and to economic patriotism in the service of the people. Having the formidable privilege of precedence, I believe I can be the most convincing spokesperson on this matter in France and in Europe.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, let me begin by joining President Borrell and others who have welcomed our friends from Bulgaria and Romania as observers. This will be a very important step towards helping the final preparations for membership. The Commission will continue to actively assist your efforts and we look forward to working with you. Let me also add that I have followed the reports about the floods and their effects in your countries during the summer. I hope you are aware of the solidarity we feel and know that we will respond to any requests for assistance you may have.

I wish to make two comments, firstly on the Constitution, because it is important for everybody to see the role of the Commission in this matter. From the very beginning, the Commission not only supported the Constitution, but was also actively involved in the work of the Convention. This was discussed every week at the Commission. We continue to support the Constitution. We all agree that it might not be a perfect document, but we support it and we have worked actively on it.

After the negative referendums in France and the Netherlands, we all know it is unlikely that the Constitution will be ratified by all Member States in the foreseeable future. That does not mean that we will not continue to work actively on the political agenda in order to deliver concrete results for the citizens of Europe. The Commission will continue to ensure that we work on our political priorities and deliver on them. We must also use this period of reflection to engage in a dialogue with citizens. This is the only way to ensure that we can gain their full support for a new Constitution. We want to find a common understanding with Member States on the way forward, with the help of the European Parliament. That is why even before the summer we started to draw up what we call 'Plan D' for debate, dialogue and democracy. At our seminar last week, we discussed a number of very concrete ideas on how we could engage in that kind of dialogue with Member States. It has to be a very broad agenda aimed at continuing the dialogue beyond the lifetime of the current Commission or Parliament. This is not only a rescue operation for the Constitution, but must also be a new way of engaging with citizens. President Barroso and I will present our preliminary ideas on this Plan D to the Conference of Presidents on Wednesday. A communication to the Council and Parliament is also being prepared and I hope that a formal version of this will be ready later this week to give you an opportunity to react to it.

Last week President Barroso sent a letter to President Borrell proposing that we identify initiatives where the Commission and Parliament could cooperate and also that our respective services meet as soon as possible to discuss such initiatives.

The best way to overcome the current crisis is to convince Europeans of the relevance of Europe. Therefore, our primary concern is to deliver on our policy priorities. Our objectives of prosperity, solidarity and security are still valid and indeed are more relevant than ever. They are in tune with what people in Europe want when we ask them through the Euro-barometer polls – more and better jobs; preserving social and territorial cohesion; managing the earth's resources in a sustainable way; and reinforcing security in Europe and the world as a whole.

Secondly, on the subject of better regulation, I first of all want to thank Parliament for its cooperation on the signing of a new framework agreement. Since this is my responsibility, I will be taking great care to make sure that we abide by the framework agreement. That is why I have studied the events which prompted criticism and unease on the part of Members of Parliament over the question of better regulation.

Better regulation has been on the agenda of our institutions for a long time. Since 2003, we have been working together on better law-making. An interinstitutional agreement was signed that year, aimed at simplifying and improving Community regulation.

This Commission made a renewed and strong commitment to better regulation at the beginning of its mandate, and better regulation at all levels has also become a central plank of the revised Lisbon Strategy. My colleague, Mr Verheugen, has kept this House regularly informed about the Commission's approach and, having looked at the calendar, I see that there have been at least ten occasions, including the preliminary hearings, on which this House has been informed about the agenda on better regulation, in addition to the general information provided in interviews and on other occasions.

It is a three-pillar approach which includes: screening of pending legislation with a view to withdrawing proposals which do not meet the criteria; the simplification exercise; and the upgrading of methods for preparing new legislative proposals, including impact assessments.

Tomorrow, the Commission will discuss and endorse the results of the screening exercise and put forward the list of legislative proposals it considers should be withdrawn. It is the first time that the whole college has had the opportunity to decide on that. It has been a thorough and extensive exercise and we propose to withdraw about one-third of the 183 pending proposals. This will be done in full respect of the relevant provisions of the revised framework agreement. Pursuant to Article 12 of the framework agreement, Commissioner Verheugen will submit our proposal to Parliament before it is made public – it will be presented here in full tomorrow, immediately after the Commission has discussed it.

With reference to Article 32 of the framework agreement, our proposal, which is a political decision at this stage, is intended as prior notification to the other institutions and, in line with established practice, the legal act of withdrawal will be taken in three months' time. This exercise has been long announced and the Commission has been open both on the methods and the objectives. We do not believe that any of the statements released to the press by individual Commissioners or by the President can be seen as undermining the prerogative of the Commission to act as a college or the commitments made to the other institutions. If you wish, I can provide the full list, detailing the series of occasion when these proposals were presented to this House in different forums – whether in the committees or in the form of decisions.

I accept that there is always scope for improving communication and trust between our two institutions. I would like to reaffirm my personal commitment to keeping this objective high on the Commission agenda. I shall not miss any opportunity to remind colleagues that it is here that proposals should first be presented.

(Applause)

  President. Thank you very much, Mrs Wallström.

Mrs Berès has requested the floor. Please tell me which Rule of the Rules of Procedure you are invoking.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to speak about the organisation of the agenda simply in order to draw your attention to our method of working. I regret that a legislative text of absolutely crucial importance to the funding of our economy – which is, I repeat, a legislative text – should be included in today’s agenda only as from 7.30 p.m. I believe that it should have been scheduled for another day and another time. I understand the importance of these moments to pause for breath and to conduct political debates, but I believe that it is also important for our Parliament to treat its legislative work in a reasonable fashion.

  President. Thank you for your comment on the way we carry out our work, but we can only follow the order of business that we have adopted.

The debate is closed.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President