Celotno besedilo 
Dobesedni zapisi razprav
Sreda, 16. november 2005 - Strasbourg Pregledana izdaja

16. Neformalno zasedanje Evropskega sveta

  El Presidente. El siguiente punto es el debate sobre el Informe del Consejo Europeo y la Declaración de la Comisión acerca de la reunión del Consejo Europeo informal, celebrada en Hampton Court, a la que, como saben, el Parlamento fue invitado en la persona de su Presidente. Agradezco a la Presidencia británica la deferencia que tuvo con el Parlamento.


  Jack Straw, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, it is a very great honour to address this Parliament again – a very high-quality group of parliamentarians are here I know. In all parliaments sometimes you speak to a very large number and sometimes you do not. I take this as full support for all the policies which have been followed both by the UK Presidency and by the United Kingdom on aspects like the budget, which I shall come to in a moment.

This is the 48th time that a British Government minister has appeared before Parliament since the beginning of the UK’s Presidency of the European Union and, with six weeks to go, I am happy to tell you there are still many more ministers on the way. That is an indication of the seriousness with which we take Parliament.

Today, I want to report back on the informal summit at Hampton Court. Much of this is now familiar to you, but what was achieved three weeks ago was important. At the beginning of the summer, the people of Europe gave a clear signal that they were unhappy with the way in which Europe was heading. They felt detached from European politics and politicians. At Hampton Court, Europe’s leaders took a significant step towards providing a response to that concern by reaching broad agreement on a direction for Europe’s economic and social policy. Much of the leg-work had, of course, already been done by the European Commission and published in its excellent paper ‘European values in the globalised world’. If I may say to President Barroso, I thought that paper was one of the best and most insightful papers that I have read on the future of Europe and its nations in the last three years.

With 20 million people unemployed across Europe and youth employment running at 18%, the main task for all of us who believe in the social model for Europe is to get Europe back to work and to give our citizens the tools to compete in the global market.

The Hampton Court summit identified six key areas, backed up by a range of specific policies, in which the joint efforts of Member States and of the Commission can bolster Europe’s economic prosperity and collective security.

First, there is research and development. We need a strong technological foundation if European companies are to stay ahead of the competition, particularly that posed by the Asian economies.

Second, there is investment in our universities. We are lagging behind the United States and, in some key respects, China and India as well.

The third is facing up to demographic change within the European Union. The EU currently has four people of working age for every elderly citizen, but over the coming decades this will fall from a ratio of four to one to just two to one. At the informal summit EU leaders therefore agreed that we had to examine in much more detail the relationship between legal migration and the EU’s future economic needs.

The fourth concern was energy. How do we handle soaring global energy demand while supply remains tight? The summit recognised that the solution requires action on a number of tracks. We have to diversify our sources of energy and approach our current major energy suppliers in a more coherent manner. We have to use our market capacity and power as users with those who are the suppliers. We also have to pursue energy efficiency and clean technologies and develop within Europe a much more genuinely open energy market. It is open in some countries, but not in all countries. I do not call that an open market.

Fifth is the European Union’s work on global security. On data retention this Parliament has an opportunity to join in the EU’s collective responsibility to shape legislation that will increase the security of our citizens and bring criminals to justice. There is a counter-terrorism strategy that will indicate how we deal with radicalisation, how we protect our infrastructure and how we ensure better exchange of information. We also have to combat illegal immigration and strengthen our borders, whilst ensuring that we harness the benefits of legal migration for the EU and for developing countries.

Finally, the summit agreed that Javier Solana, working with the Presidency, should take forward work on common foreign and security policy aspects of defence and security. There are specific proposals for research and training in this area to fill gaps in our capability. We also have to improve crisis management structures to respond to disasters and look to increase funding for CFSP. In December, by the way, we will be publishing a comprehensive strategy for Africa.

In all areas there will be interim reports to the December European Council and final reports during the Austrian Presidency in the first half of next year. I am confident that in drawing up these reports the Commission will give full consideration to the views of the relevant Parliamentary committees. This, in some detail, is what was discussed at Hampton Court.

However, now that we have broad agreement on the direction of a modern Europe, we have to get the right budget deal to deliver these economic and social priorities. The Presidency is committed to working for a budget deal in December. But we all know that it is going to be extremely difficult to reach one. In June, five Member States rejected the proposed budget; next month we will need all 25 to agree. So we have some hard negotiating ahead of us. With that in mind, we aim to table comprehensive proposals in early December for discussion at a conclave of foreign ministers.

Changes will be needed in three main areas. First, we have to chart a new direction for the European Union budget to ensure that it can respond to the challenges of the 21st century. That requires establishing a clear timetable for a review covering all aspects of revenue and expenditure, a hard look at where the money comes from, how it is used and how we account for it. Failure to sign off the European Union’s accounts for the eleventh successive year – which is very poor – affects the climate of debate and of opinion about the whole of the European Union in every single Member State. So this new direction requires the laying-down of clear objectives for future Union spending, for the accounting for that spending, without which there will not be taxpayer confidence in what this Union is doing, and setting clear pathways for the future reform of the Union’s policies.

Second, we have to amend the structure of spending from 1 January 2007 from that which was proposed in the last negotiating box in June, notably to take account of recent discussions by Member States of the proposals by Commission President Barroso, which he made on 20 October.

Third, the consequences of any proposed changes to the own-resources decision – in other words to the amount which is paid by Member States to the EU’s budget – must be seen to be fair and balanced in all Member States. For that to happen, significant changes will be needed to the arrangements affecting the United Kingdom – amongst other Member States – from those that were proposed in June. I do not want anybody to be taken by surprise: when I talk about significant changes, I mean significant changes. Without significant changes, I see little prospect of a deal. However, with them, I believe that we can take negotiations forward and we are committed, as the Presidency, to trying to do a deal and we will make every effort to get there.

So far, I have talked about Europe’s response to the challenges of globalisation mainly in terms of what we will do – what policies we adopt and what budget we should agree. However, globalisation also poses a challenge to Europe in terms not just of what we do but how we do things. As I have indicated, there is a growing gap between the politics of Europe and the people of Europe.

It is exactly this question that will be the focus of a conference tomorrow in The Hague, jointly hosted by the Dutch and the British Governments. The ‘Sharing Power in Europe’ conference will look at how regional and national parliaments can work more effectively with European institutions, including the European Parliament, and how we can get the right balance between action at the regional, national and European levels to deliver the best results for our citizens.

I should like here to express great appreciation to Jan Peter Balkenende, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, for first proposing that such a conference be held – he did so at the June European Council – and to our colleague, Bernard Bot, the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, who has helped the British Presidency to take this idea forward and to host the conference tomorrow.

A part of all this effort has to be to bring Europe closer to its citizens and to make European Union legislation lighter and more relevant. As globalisation has made it more difficult for the people of Europe to relate to its institutions, so too have those people, our citizens, become more critical about the nature of European Union legislation. They are much more impatient of a dirigiste regime and more strident in their belief that methods of regulation cannot, and should not, be a proxy for outcome. Too often – it is true of all parliaments and unions but it is particularly true of the European Union – the method has been seen as the same as the outcome. This is not the case. Businesses, non-governmental organisations and Member States want new European rules, for example, to fight unfair competition, to protect the environment or to improve our legal systems. However, they want action that makes our lives better, not more complicated. Standardisation and harmonisation do not add value by themselves.

Thanks to the efforts of the Commission under President Barroso, there are many positive signs now. For example, the Commission has listened to what businesses and people want and has proposed a lighter regulatory touch in financial services. This will help promote a globally competitive European financial sector. The Commission’s three-year action programme for simplifying the acquis is another very welcome step, as is the recognition that the European Union does not always need to get involved in those areas where it used to get involved. Hence the decision to get rid of a 1968 directive which regulated the number and the size of knots in wood. There may have been a reason 37 years ago for the European Union to regulate the number and size of knots in wood. However, today we ought to leave that maybe to Member States or just to the judgement of those people who buy wood from a timber dealer. Why not?

The proposal to see whether we can simplify the way in which employers have to give compliance reports on 20 separate directives on health and safety at work should lessen the burden on employers, giving them more time to focus on workers’ needs – maybe on creating jobs – than on paperwork.

As a co-legislator, the European Parliament has a critical role to play in all this. Let us take REACH – which was the subject of a little excitement outside as I came in and, I have heard, a little excitement in here. It is controversial how far you regulate the European chemical industry to protect the consumer. None of us wants to be poisoned by chemicals. Nonetheless I believe that Europe’s record on this is exemplary and second to none in the whole of the universe. Equally, none of us want to see, in a globalised world in which barriers have come down, Europe’s chemical industry brought to its knees so that the regulation, which is a very fine one, ends up regulating an industry that has disappeared, to be replaced by industries across the world in China, India and elsewhere, where the regulation is far less good than it is today. That is the dilemma facing Parliament, as it faces all our peoples.

We have to recognise the difficult cases. The proposed changes to the Working Time Directive are a good example of well-meaning legislation that will not achieve what those changes are set out to do, and where method and outcome have become grievously confused.

We are all agreed that European labour markets must embrace decent standards of protection for our workers. Europeans must have rights at work, but they must also have jobs in which they can exercise those rights at work. My Prime Minister said recently that we hoped to resolve the outstanding issues on this directive during our Presidency, and that remains our goal.

Let us be clear about the nature of the challenges we have to address. The Working Time Directive is justified as being about health and safety, and in part, it is. But rigid limits on total hours worked are not the answer. The United Kingdom has one of the best health and safety records in the whole of the European Union. Since you ask, we are second best in terms of days lost through injury and, I believe, third best in terms of deaths at work. We have shown by our record that a strong health and safety record judged by outcomes is entirely compatible with flexible labour markets and flexible working hours. Rigid pan-European limits on working hours will not deliver health and safety for our workforce, particularly where the rules are unevenly applied.

Some European partners have rightly, I believe, expressed great concern that there are other Member States in which working time limits are being applied per contract and not per worker. Some of those countries are the same ones that say there have to be rigid limits; but when it comes to enforcement within their own countries, there is a dodge taking place and in the place of enforcement per worker – which has to be the basis for health and safety – it is per contract. Therefore, if people have two contracts – two jobs, one person – then they can evade the limit, entirely unregulated and unprotected. It does not make sense from a health and safety point of view. It does not make sense from an employment practice perspective. It does not make sense in terms of the reputation of the European Union of applying fair and sensible regulations across Europe.

We have to find ways to implement and enforce the directive which match the needs of all labour markets. We must ensure that all workers enjoy proper employment rights and that none are forced by the rigidities of this directive into a grey economy, for that is what is happening.

The blunt truth about the directive is that in seeking to reset European limits and standards, we risk infringing individual workers’ freedom to work the hours they choose. We will undeniably restrict employers’ flexibility to adapt to changing businesses and seasonal demands and, in doing so, will threaten the very jobs on which workers’ livelihoods depend. That cannot be right. It is vital that workers feel safe and appropriately protected in the workplace. It is good business as much as it is good politics.

We need to judge how much of this should be fixed at European level and how much we should trust national governments, employers and trade unions to agree on an approach that reflects labour traditions and good practice within individual Member States and across Europe. After all, the minimum wage, another aspect of labour regulation in which I happen to believe passionately, has always been left to Member States. I believe that is quite right. Now is the time to leave far more issues concerning working hours to Member States as well. That seems to me to be an excellent example of an area where Europe, in addressing the challenges of seeking to engage more closely with our citizens, must go forward with a lighter touch.

When the United Kingdom took over the Presidency of the European Union we also inherited the need to conduct a wide debate on the future of Europe. The Hampton Court summit was a vital element of that debate. But the debate is far from finished. The process of constructing a modern, confident Europe will be an even longer one. This is a journey which governments, politicians and parliaments, including this one, cannot take alone. We have to bring the benefits of Europe to the people of Europe and take the people with us.



  José Manuel Barroso, président de la Commission. Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Ministre des affaires étrangères, Mesdames, Messieurs les députés, comme l'a souligné M. Jack Straw, nous pouvons être satisfaits des résultats de ce Sommet informel. Je tiens à vous dire que je me réjouis du fait que la voix du Parlement européen ait pu s'y faire entendre, grâce à la participation du Président Borell à l'ensemble des discussions. Je ne peux que féliciter le premier ministre Blair, pour la façon dont il a contribué à créer une atmosphère positive, un climat de confiance. Je suis particulièrement fier du rôle que la Commission a joué dans le succès de ce Sommet.

Nos discussions à Hampton Court ont débouché sur un consensus autour d'une idée fondamentale et de cinq domaines clés. L'idée fondamentale est la suivante: pour préserver nos valeurs, il nous faut moderniser nos politiques. Il n'y a pas de contradictions entre un projet de réforme économique de modernisation de l'Europe et l'attachement à une Europe politique, à une Europe sociale. Les cinq domaines clés sont, brièvement: en premier lieu, un consensus sur l'analyse et la nature des défis auxquels nous sommes confrontés, qui suit la contribution que la Commission a présentée – et je vous remercie à ce propos, Monsieur le Ministre, pour les mots que vous avez eus sur la qualité de notre document. En deuxième lieu, l'importance de mettre concrètement en œuvre des réformes ambitieuses en faveur de la croissance et de l'emploi. Tous les États membres se sont attelés à cette tâche et la Commission fera un rapport sur les programmes nationaux développés pour mettre en œuvre les conclusions de Lisbonne au tout début de l'année prochaine. En troisième lieu, l'approfondissement des travaux concrets sur les réponses politiques à apporter à la mondialisation, au vieillissement de nos populations, portant sur des domaines précis tels que la recherche et le développement, les universités, l'énergie et la démographie, y inclus le problème de l'immigration. En quatrième lieu, précisément, une nouvelle priorité à la politique d'immigration, couvrant à la fois l'immigration légale qui répond sans doute aux besoins de notre économie, la sécurisation des frontières attendue par nos citoyens et des politiques d'intégration efficaces qui sont indispensables dans nos sociétés multiculturelles. En cinquième lieu, de nouvelles initiatives en vue d'examiner comment notre action extérieure peut être renforcée, afin de mieux répondre à la mondialisation et aux nouvelles menaces sur la sécurité qui ne s'arrête aux frontières nationales.

Nous devons maintenant avancer dans ces travaux. J'espère que nous pourrons le faire en collaboration étroite avec le Parlement et avec les Présidences du Conseil actuelle et à venir.

Afin de soutenir la dynamique en faveur de la croissance et de l'emploi à long terme, la Commission se propose de donner un nouvel élan à la recherche et au développement et de présenter des façons de réorganiser les systèmes éducatifs d'Europe et les universités. Nous ferons rapport au Conseil et au Parlement européen sur ces questions, avant le Conseil européen du printemps.

Rechercher les moyens de mieux affronter le défi démographique: dès le début de l'année prochaine, nous présenterons les résultats de la consultation qui a été lancée au début de l'année avec la publication d'un livre vert sur la démographie.

Définir une politique énergétique cohérente: nous présenterons l'année prochaine une stratégie pour l'Europe. Toutes les options doivent rester ouvertes. Cette reconnaissance nouvelle du fait qu'il faut travailler ensemble dans un domaine qui, jusqu'à très récemment, était considéré comme un domaine réservé des États membres est très importante.

Concernant la migration, les travaux sont déjà en cours. Plusieurs propositions ont déjà été soumises au Parlement et, avant la fin de l'année, un document devrait permettre d'approfondir la réflexion et l'action en matière d'immigration légale et illégale.

Enfin, la sécurité nous place devant un double défi. Nous devons à la fois mieux travailler ensemble pour nous attaquer à la criminalité transfrontalière que nous connaissons en Europe, mais aussi donner plus de détermination à notre engagement à lutter contre le terrorisme international. Là encore, d'importantes propositions de la Commission sont sur la table et une stratégie de lutte contre le terrorisme est en cours d'exécution. Mais nous devons aussi consentir de plus gros efforts pour faire en sorte que l'Union européenne tienne pleinement sa place dans le débat sur les réponses à apporter à la mondialisation. C'est pourquoi la Commission présentera un document de réflexion, a concept paper, examinant la façon dont nous, Commission européenne, pouvons contribuer avec le Conseil, avec le Parlement, à renforcer la cohérence extérieure de l'Union.

Il est évident que nous pouvons faire plus en faveur de la cohérence de notre action étrangère, non seulement sur le plan de la politique étrangère et de défense commune, mais aussi des différents instruments de politique intérieure qui ont une dimension extérieure, et aussi dans des domaines où la Commission a un rôle spécial à jouer comme l'aide au développement, le commerce international et la politique de voisinage, par exemple.

Hampton Court showed once again why the European Union matters in a globalised world. Never before has European integration been so much in question, but never before has it been so necessary. Europe has the scale and the range of policies to maximise the benefits of globalisation for its citizens and to minimise the threats. It is European legislation which enables a terrorist suspect to be transferred from Italy to London within 50 days. A process that once took years now takes weeks because we have an instrument at European level and because we have European legislation that enables us to do that. It is Europe that can provide answers to the challenges of more expensive and scarcer energy. It is also Europe which will help manage the border crossing in Gaza, a very important recent development. It is Europe which is leading the world in aid for Africa. So there is a need for this European dimension.

We agree – and we have done a great deal to achieve this with better regulation – on the need for sensible legislation to avoid bureaucratic measures. However, that does not mean a minimalist Europe – and I want to be totally clear about that. Not at all. It means that Europe should do less in some areas and should make the lives of our citizens and businesses easier. Nevertheless, at the same time, there are areas where we have to do more, not less. It is a very important to avoid the idea of a minimalist Europe.

It is the responsibility of all of us European leaders – at Council level, Parliament level and Commission level – to explain this and to avoid the demagoguery and populism that is sometimes levelled against Europe. Because, in this globalised world, we need a strong Europe more than ever. But all these policies – from external relations, to security, to migration, to energy, to research, to universities – need money; they cost money.

When I was a child my mother told me never to speak about money because it is impolite. But now I have to speak about money. Because without money, we cannot deliver on those policies, we need the resources to go ahead with our policies.

Distinguished members of the Council, you cannot ask the Commission and the other European institutions to deliver and not give them the means to deliver on those policies.

The positive atmosphere, the signs of a stronger European political will that we saw at Hampton Court, must now be turned into action, turned into an agreement on the financial perspective next month. This is the defining issue of the British Presidency; it is the test of whether Europe is on the move, and we need Europe on the move.

In respect of prosperity, solidarity and security, all we can do is give our citizens the means to achieve them. I know the British Presidency is working hard for a deal; the cost of failure would be high. It is hard to see how our positions will converge within a few months. So there is a real risk of no agreement next month, leading to delays in money coming on-stream for the new Member States, a risk that the Community will not be able to deliver on crucial international commitments, including commitments for the poorest.

Without the financial perspective, how can the European Union make medium-term commitments to global funds for HIV/AIDS? How can we respect the commitments we made at the United Nations for the Millennium Development Goals? How can we support the Caribbean countries in adjusting to the changes in the European Community banana regimes, for instance? How can we keep our commitments to African peacekeeping? How can we go ahead with the so-called new policies, the policies for the future? Indeed, if there is no agreement we will keep the policies of the past; we will not have the means for the policies for the future.

I also think we all agree that an enlarged, more diverse European Union needs more investment. I do not say ‘the costs of enlargement’ because I do not like the word ‘costs’ when we speak about enlargement. But now that we are a much bigger Europe and we are a much more diverse Europe we need more investment for those new Members. We have to share the burden of this investment.

We have a duty of solidarity to the new Member States who look to the European Union for support in their rapid and remarkable progress in modernisation and reform. This is a win-win situation for all Member States. This is not a zero-sum game and it is precisely because we have to bridge this gap that I came up with some proposals, including a proposal now being taken into consideration by the British Presidency – I thank the British Presidency for that – linking cohesion and competitiveness. In our thinking there is no contradiction between cohesion on one side and competitiveness on the other, on the contrary. The cohesion and support for the new Member States is also a way for them to improve their competitiveness and for Europe as a whole to be more competitive.

So I hope that those proposals will be taken into account in the final agreement so in the end it will also be clear that what we are proposing is not money for an old concept of Europe, it is money for a more competitive and more modern Europe, but a Europe that at the same time keeps its strong values in terms of cohesion.

We need a fair sharing of this burden. No Member State can do enlargement on the cheap. I trust in the common sense of the British Presidency to deliver a fair and balanced agreement next month. I hope that we will achieve this by strengthening, and not reducing, the Commission and Parliament’s ambition for an enlarged Europe. Because we have to say very frankly that the financial perspectives represent an agreement between the Council, Commission and the Parliament, and the position of Parliament and the Commission should be taken into consideration in the final agreement.

Hampton Court was indeed a success. Hampton Court was the first very important step in a new consensus for a dynamic, modern Europe. I hope that the positive spirit of dynamism and openness which everyone showed there can be turned into agreement on the budget now. I give my full support to the Presidency in its efforts to achieve that and I wish the Presidency and all the Member States the very best.



  El Presidente. Gracias señor Barroso, la Presidencia desea observar que el debate era sobre el Consejo Europeo de Hampton Court y está derivando hacia un predebate sobre las perspectivas financieras. Pero la Presidencia no va a señalar a los participantes en el debate sobre qué deben debatir. Pueden insistir en el tema de las perspectivas financieras si lo desean aunque no figure específicamente en el orden del día.


  Hans-Gert Poettering, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissionspräsident, Herr Ratspräsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Einen Tag vor Hampton Court war der Präsident des Europäischen Rates hier, nicht der britische Premierminister. Er ist zwar auch britischer Premierminister, aber als britischer Premierminister ist er Präsident des Europäischen Rates.

Es war ein gutes Signal, dass Tony Blair einen Tag vor Hampton Court hier war. Ich fand, das war die richtige Reihenfolge: erst ins Parlament, und dann zu den Staats- und Regierungschefs. Ich begrüße es auch sehr, dass unser Präsident die ganze Zeit in Hampton Court war. Herr Ratspräsident, ich empfehle Ihnen, dass Sie für den Gipfel in Brüssel den Präsidenten des Europäischen Parlaments auch für die ganze Zeit einladen. Das wäre dann eine gute Grundlage für die Zukunft: Man würde sich immer an Großbritannien erinnern, das den Präsidenten des Europäischen Parlaments zur Gänze in den Europäischen Gipfel einbezogen hat.

Sie haben mit wunderbarem britischen Understatement die Qualität der hier anwesenden Abgeordneten erwähnt. Ich finde es wunderbar, wie Sie damit indirekt eine berechtigte Kritik zum Ausdruck bringen: Wir könnten hier zahlreicher sein. Aber Sie haben die Qualität angesprochen, und das zeigt, welcher Meister des Parlamentarismus Sie in Großbritannien sind.

Doch jetzt möchte ich etwas Wasser in den Wein gießen: Sie sprachen von den Besuchen der Minister, 48 Mal sei ein Minister in den europäischen Institutionen gewesen. Das finde ich toll, das wird sich sicher auch noch auf 60 erhöhen, weil wir ja noch sechs Wochen haben, aber am Ende ist entscheidend, dass der Quantität der Minister des britischen Ratsvorsitzes auch die Qualität entspricht, und da haben wir noch die Hoffnung, dass dies bis Ende Dezember dieses Jahres dann auch der Fall ist.

Sie haben gesagt, Europa sei weit weg von den Bürgern. Das ist wahr, darüber müssen wir nachdenken, wie wir das gemeinsam verbessern. Aber dies gilt natürlich auch für die nationale Politik. Insofern haben wir auf der nationalen und auf der europäischen Ebene eine gleiche Anstrengung zu unternehmen, um das Vertrauen in die Politik insgesamt herzustellen.

Ich denke – und das war wohl der Erfolg von Hampton Court –, dass, wenn man das von außen betrachtet, doch zwischen den Akteuren neues Vertrauen entstanden ist. Als Vorsitzender einer Fraktion mit Abgeordneten aus allen 25 Mitgliedstaaten sowie aus 45 nationalen Parteien weiß ich aus Erfahrung, dass man bei einer so schwierigen Interessenlage – die ja auch in den anderen Fraktionen, im Parlament hier insgesamt, wie auch bei den Regierungen besteht – Probleme nur bewältigen kann, wenn Vertrauen da ist. Wenn kein Vertrauen da ist, dann gibt es auch keine politischen Lösungen. Das ist unsere Forderung an die Staats- und Regierungschefs, dass jeder Einzelne seinen Beitrag leistet, Vertrauen zu schaffen im Verhältnis zu den anderen Mitgliedern des Europäischen Rates.

Es war die Rede von der Zukunft Europas, vom Papier der Kommission, von der Globalisierung. Ich will das jetzt nicht alles wiederholen. Entscheidend ist aber, dass wir einerseits die Globalisierung – dass wir eine Welt sind und immer mehr eine Welt werden, das ist doch der Kern der Globalisierung – im Kern akzeptieren; dass wir sie aber andererseits nicht nur erdulden, sondern gestalten, das heißt, dass wir die Auswüchse, die negativen Auswirkungen der Globalisierung, durch politisches Handeln gestalten. Ich glaube, das ist unsere Aufgabe.

Nun möchte ich etwas sagen zu dem wichtigsten Bereich, der zu entscheiden sein wird, und zu dem Sie ja auch eine Debatte geführt haben, wenn auch am Rande. Der Präsident des Parlaments hat es ja schon erwähnt: es ist die Finanzielle Vorausschau. Ich rate Ihnen, wenn Sie gestatten – und wenn Sie es nicht gestatten, rate ich es Ihnen auch –, dass Sie bei der Finanziellen Vorausschau zu einer Lösung kommen. Denn Großbritannien war immer für die Erweiterung – und hier sind Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus den Ländern, die am 1. Mai 2004 der Europäischen Union beigetreten sind –, wenn es auch bei den institutionellen Fragen unseren gemeinsamen Weg nicht immer mitgegangen ist. Wenn Sie mit der Finanziellen Vorausschau scheitern, dann werden Sie insbesondere die am 1. Mai 2004 beigetretenen früheren kommunistischen Länder enttäuschen. Deswegen: Tun Sie alles, Herr Ratspräsident, damit Sie zu einem Ergebnis kommen! Dazu müssen Sie – und auch der Präsident des Europäischen Rates – allerdings auch den Mut haben, beim Britenrabatt einen klaren Strich zu ziehen.

Sie haben von einem fundamentalen Wandel gesprochen. Wahrscheinlich haben Sie die Agrarpolitik gemeint. Aber wir brauchen auch einen fundamentalen Wandel, was die Beiträge der einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten angeht, und da kann jetzt während Ihrer Präsidentschaft auch Großbritannien einen großen Beitrag leisten. Die Agrarpolitik ist bis zum Jahre 2013 beschlossen. Aber wenn es eine Lösung für den britischen Beitrag gibt, wenn wir zu einer Finanziellen Vorausschau kommen wollen, dann muss auch gesichert sein, dass wir zumindest im Sinne einer verpflichtenden Absichtserklärung bereit sind, zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt über eine weitere Reform der Agrarpolitik nachzudenken.

Herr Ratspräsident, vergessen Sie nicht, wenn Sie über die Finanzielle Vorausschau sprechen und hoffentlich zu Entscheidungen kommen – ich sage das auch an die Adresse der Kommission: Das entscheiden Sie im Rat nicht alleine! Das Europäische Parlament ist Teil der Haushaltsbehörde, und das Europäische Parlament ist gleichberechtigter Mitentscheider. Das heißt: Gewährleisten Sie, dass das Europäische Parlament voll einbezogen wird! Wir repräsentieren, wie Sie natürlich auch, die Bürger Europas, und wenn wir gemeinsam guten Willen zeigen, wenn wir gemeinsam Vertrauen haben, dann wird es auch möglich sein, die Probleme zu lösen.



  Robert Goebbels, au nom du groupe PSE. – Monsieur le Président, Hampton Court fut un Sommet sans conclusions formelles. Les promesses du Sommet risquent d'être aussi éphémères que les engagements maritaux contractés par le roi Henri VIII dans le même palais.

La Présidence britannique a raison d'inviter les Vingt-cinq à opérer des réformes, à investir davantage dans les technologies d'avenir, à créer les conditions d'un meilleur emploi. Des réformes restent nécessaires, mais pour beaucoup de citoyens, le mot "réforme" a une connotation négative et est synonyme de perte d'emplois et de rabotage social.

Jack Straw vient de critiquer la position du Parlement sur la directive relative au temps de travail. Je conseille au ministre de relire la toute première convention adoptée par l'International Labour Organisation à l'époque de la Société des nations et qui visait la semaine de quarante-huit heures sans opt out.

Les réformes sont acceptées si elles permettent d'améliorer le bien-être général. Pour y parvenir, l'Europe doit changer son discours trop pessimiste, trop misérabiliste. Vue de l'extérieur, l'Union est un exemple. Le Président du Chili l'a répété ici le mois dernier. Mais, à lire les communications de la Commission, l'Europe serait devenue un hospice à l'horizon 2050. Qui d'entre nous pourra contrôler ces projections alarmistes en 2050? Oui, l'Europe sera confrontée à un vieillissement de sa population. Mais le Japon et la Russie connaîtront une population en régression. Et que dire de la Chine avec sa politique de l'enfant unique par famille? Que dire de l'Inde et des autres pays qui n'arrivent pas à juguler une population en croissance trop rapide? Quel pays connaîtra les plus grands problèmes démographiques à l'horizon 2020, sans même oser parler de 2050?

S'il y a un domaine où l'Europe pourrait imiter les États-Unis, c'est celui de la politique d'immigration qui pourrait être plus généreuse. Une grande partie du surplus de croissance américaine de la dernière décennie vient de l'apport des dix millions de latinos et des centaines de milliers de scientifiques européens et asiatiques. Il y a quinze jours, le sénat américain a décidé d'accorder chaque année 330 000 Green Cards supplémentaires pour des immigrants très qualifiés.

La compétitivité de l'Europe est un souci permanent. Toutefois, en comparant à d'autres la compétitivité horaire et surtout la compétitivité industrielle de l'Europe, force est de constater que nous battons largement les États-Unis dans la majorité des secteurs économiques. La communication de la Commission sur la politique industrielle le reconnaît. L'Union est toujours la première destination et la première source pour les investissements mondiaux. En 2003, les investissements des Quinze ont été quatre fois plus élevés dans les dix nouveaux pays qu'en Chine, qui n'a reçu que 3,8% de l'investissement européen. Cessons donc de nous faire peur avec la Chine. Il n'est que normal qu'un pays de 1,3 milliard d'habitants prenne une part plus importante dans le commerce mondial, mais en chiffres absolus, la part de l'Europe dans le commerce mondial s'accroît, même si certains secteurs connaissent des difficultés. Toutefois, les neuf dixièmes de nos échanges ne se font pas avec des pays à bas salaire mais avec des pays développés.

La globalisation est une grande chance pour réduire la misère dans le monde. La croissance des échanges internationaux est depuis cinquante ans plus rapide que la croissance du produit mondial brut. Cela démontre que le commerce extérieur n'est pas un jeu à sommes nulles mais a permis de tirer de la pauvreté des millions d'humains tout en bénéficiant aux consommateurs des pays riches. Ce sont en fait nos consommateurs qui, en achetant les produits les moins chers, forcent nos industriels à devenir plus compétitifs.

L'Union reste la première force exportatrice au monde, tirée par l'Allemagne, la France et l'Italie. Ces trois pays sont néanmoins en panne de croissance intérieure. Leurs citoyens accumulent une épargne record. De leur côté, les Américains et les Britanniques consomment tout en s'endettant dangereusement. Pour retrouver la croissance, il faut redonner confiance aux Européens. Il n'y a pas d'alternative au marché, mais le marché est incapable de produire la solidarité qui est le signe distinctif du modèle européen. Il faut de la volonté politique pour créer plus de solidarité entre nos pays et dans nos pays.

La politique se résume toujours à une question de moyens – et sur ce point, je rejoins le président Barroso –, or ce sont les moyens budgétaires qui manquent cruellement à l'Europe. Tony Blair a raison de nous inviter à investir davantage dans la recherche, dans les universités. Cela implique que le budget de l'Union devrait être alimenté avec des moyens supérieurs au misérable 1% du PIB que veulent bien concéder quelques grands pays, à commencer par la Grande-Bretagne.


Le groupe socialiste jugera la Présidence sur sa capacité à dégager des perspectives financières réalistes mais plus généreuses. Le Sommet de décembre doit être le Sommet de la solidarité retrouvée. Un engagement fort des Vingt-cinq en faveur d'une politique de relance coordonnée ainsi que des investissements infrastructurels nationaux et transeuropéens plus importants permettront à l'Europe de retrouver la croissance, condition nécessaire, Monsieur le Président, pour faire accepter des réformes structurelles difficiles. C'est la croissance qui engendrera la stabilité, Monsieur le Président, et non l'inverse.



  El Presidente. Muchas gracias, señor Goebbels. El debate se anima, y esto es positivo para conseguir que algunos diputados más se incorporen a él.


  Karin Riis-Jørgensen, for ALDE-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Kære kolleger! Jeg kan forstå, at parterapien på højt niveau i Hampton Court tilsyneladende gik, som den skulle. Men terapien foregik jo også i de rette romantiske og eksklusive omgivelser, så I havde alle odds med jer. Nu, hvor alle regeringslederne er hjemme igen efter terapien, skal det for alvor vise sig, om terapeuten Tony Blairs indsats har båret frugt. For vi ved jo alle, at når ægteskaberne knager, falder man ofte tilbage på de samme dårlige vaner. Jeg har derfor en konkret opfordring til formandskabet og Kommissionen!

I praksis er det reelt meget lidt, EU-landene i fællesskab kan gøre for at få gang i den nødvendige og efterlyste reformproces for at modernisere det europæiske arbejdsmarked, så det passer til samfundet af i dag. Vi ved jo alle, at dette nødvendige arbejde skal udføres af det enkelte medlemsland. Reformarbejdet er alene et nationalt anliggende.

EU kan og skal derimod færdiggøre arbejdet med at skabe et fuldendt indre marked for kapital og for serviceydelser. Mens parterapien stadig har en effekt, opfordrer jeg derfor formandskabet og Kommissionen til at arbejde for at sikre fuld liberalisering af det europæiske servicemarked og kapitalmarkedet. Hvis dette lykkes, er jeg overbevist om, at det vil afføde reelle arbejdsmarkedsreformer efter devisen: "There's no other alternative". For borgerne er fordelene ved en sådan reform enorme, og det er jo det, EU-samarbejdet drejer sig om: At give en ekstra værdi til vores medborgere.

Og så et klart spørgsmål til Dem, hr. Straw! De nævner Revisionsrettens årsberetning. Er De parat til at være et godt eksempel og sørge for, at De og Det Forenede Kongerige tager ansvaret for administrationen af et EU-tilskud i Deres land? Det har Deres finansminister jo desværre nægtet i sidste uge. Jeg efterlyser et klart svar fra Dem. Tak for Deres opmærksomhed.


  Pierre Jonckheer, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, j'aurai trois réactions à votre discours, Monsieur Straw.

Sur la Conférence de La Haye, que vous avez évoquée, je me permettrai de vous suggérer très modestement de relire le projet de Constitution que vous avez signé et qui, à mon avis, comprend des solutions à la fois sur la répartition des compétences et sur le rôle des parlements nationaux. Pourquoi abandonner ce projet?

En ce qui concerne la politique sociale et la directive relative à l'aménagement du temps de travail, je suis d'accord avec vous: il faut dire oui à la diversité nationale, mais s'il faut s'inspirer d'un modèle, j'aimerais autant m'inspirer du modèle scandinave.

Et puis, sur la question du marché unique, j'espère que vous conviendrez avec moi du fait que la concurrence doit également être fair and balanced. En d'autres termes, le marché unique se construit aussi sur des normes communes sociales, s'inscrivant ainsi dans l'esprit même des traités.

Enfin, en ce qui concerne le budget, je pense que nous rencontrons un vrai problème de crédibilité au niveau à la fois des recettes et des dépenses – M. Barroso et le Parlement européen y ont suffisamment fait allusion. Réussir l'Union européenne à vingt-cinq, exprimer notre solidarité constante vis-à-vis des nouveaux pays membres et mener une politique extérieure avec des moyens suffisants, éventuellement plus de 5 % du budget, supposent une augmentation du budget communautaire.

Et surtout, et je terminerai par là, il nous faut sortir du débat budgétaire caractérisé par une montée des égoïsmes nationaux. Il faut que, dans l'évaluation à mi-parcours appelée par la Commission et par le Parlement, la Présidence et l'ensemble du Conseil européen prennent l'engagement politique de proposer un mécanisme européen dotant l'Union européenne de véritables ressources autonomes pour l'avenir des politiques de l'Union. Avec un tel engagement, nous pourrions peut-être convaincre nos citoyens de l'utilité de la politique européenne.


  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, χαίρομαι που σήμερα έχουμε την ευκαιρία, με την παρουσία του προεδρεύοντα του Συμβουλίου καθώς και του Προέδρου της Επιτροπής, να κάνουμε μία αποτίμηση του άτυπου Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου το οποίο έλαβε χώρα στο τέλος του περασμένου μήνα.

Δυστυχώς, ενώ η ιδέα για τη σύγκληση του Συμβουλίου δεν ήταν κακή, η εκτέλεση έπασχε τα μέγιστα. Πράγματι, σε μία εποχή όπου η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πνέει τα λοίσθια αφού μετράμε είκοσι εκατομμύρια άνεργους, όπου δεν ξέρουμε πώς να αντιμετωπίσουμε τα κοινωνικά προβλήματα ιδίως αυτά που ξέσπασαν προσφάτως στη Γαλλία, και όπου η εμπιστοσύνη του πολίτη προς τους κυβερνώντες μειώνεται κατά γεωμετρική πρόοδο, η ιδέα να βρεθούν οι ηγέτες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο Λονδίνο για να συζητήσουν το ευρωπαϊκό κοινωνικό μοντέλο και την αντίσταση στην παγκοσμιοποίηση ήταν, φαινομενικά, πολύ καλή.

Δυστυχώς, αντί να επικρατήσει συναίνεση, είδαμε πάλι τους πατροπαράδοτους καυγάδες να ξεσπάνε για ένα τόσο σημαντικό θέμα για το μέλλον της Ευρώπης, όπως είναι των δημοσιονομικών προοπτικών.

Θυμίζω, κύριε Πρόεδρε, ότι ο κύριος Μπλερ, κατά την αγόρευσή του στο ίδιο βήμα εδώ στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο στις 23 Ιουνίου, είχε δηλώσει ότι ανέκαθεν ήταν ένας ενθουσιώδης υπέρμαχος της Ευρώπης. Αναρωτιέμαι, τεσσεράμισι μήνες μετά, με ποιον τρόπο μετατρέπει αυτά τα λόγια ο κύριος Μπλερ σε πράξη. Ποια είναι η αποτίμηση της Προεδρίας της χώρας του μέχρι τώρα αφού ένα μήνα πριν από τη λήξη της δεν έχουμε πετύχει συμφωνία για τις δημοσιονομικές προοπτικές. Το κοινωνικό μοντέλο δεν έχει προχωρήσει ούτε σπιθαμή και η απάντηση του Συμβουλίου στην παγκοσμιοποίηση είναι η δημιουργία ενός διφορούμενου ταμείου ρύθμισης.

Αναρωτιέμαι πραγματικά, κύριε Πρόεδρε της Επιτροπής, εάν έχετε σκεφτεί σοβαρά την αντίδραση των απολυμένων εργαζομένων όταν θα τους απαντάτε ότι για όλα τα κακά της παγκοσμιοποίησης υπάρχει η πανάκια του ταμείου.

Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Βρετανική Προεδρία είχε την ευκαιρία να γράψει ιστορία στο Hampton Court. Aντ' αυτού, απέδειξε για άλλη μια φορά ότι πρόκειται για ένωση συμφερόντων σπαταλώντας άσκοπα ώρες και δημόσιο χρήμα για συζητήσεις άνευ ουσίας και της οποίας τα λάθη καλείται, δυστυχώς, να πληρώσει ο Ευρωπαίος πολίτης.


  Michael Henry Nattrass, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the Hampton Court meeting was to be the ‘social model’ summit. Then Mr Blair socialised – the same Mr Blair who strode into Brussels in July promising root and branch reform, but then pruned it down to the most invisible square root of a branch of any EU Presidency in memory.

The comments after Hampton Court were from those amazed that nothing happened. In fact it should be labelled the Hampton Court ‘aMaze’. The ARD TV station in Germany said that, after four months, nothing happened – absolutely nothing. The Polish media called it one of the most bizarre EU summits. In Italy, La Repubblica just called it ‘embarrassed’ and ‘embarrassing’.

Mr Blair claimed it debated the things the public wanted it to debate, but the public does not want European policies for universities when the EU has no competence in education. Nor does it want things like nine separate missions around the world as part of an EU defence policy.

If Hampton Court proved anything, it was that vacuums are dangerous when filled with hot air from politicians. I propose that a blue metal plaque be placed on the wall at Hampton Court saying: ‘On this spot on 27 October 2005 nothing happened’ or, as they say in Yorkshire: ‘Eee, you must be jokin’’.


  Roberta Angelilli, a nome del gruppo UEN. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Ministro Straw, parafrasando le sue parole iniziali, io ci sono e mi permetto di dissentire. Battute a parte, nonostante le apprezzabili buone intenzioni di Blair e di Barroso, il vertice di Hampton Court risulta ampiamente insoddisfacente nei suoi risultati pratici.

Innanzitutto, la tanto attesa piattaforma sul modello sociale europeo della Commissione è apparsa piuttosto deludente. Non è stata proposta nessuna vera strategia e nessuna ambizione per un autentico rilancio dell'economia europea, ma piuttosto una politica di riduzione del danno. Dietro a denuncie altisonanti, come la "lisbonizzazione" delle risorse e il fondo per la globalizzazione, a tutt'oggi non vi è nulla di concreto.

Per quanto riguarda il presidente Blair, il bilancio politico non è di certo positivo. Di fatto, nonostante le continue rassicurazioni di facciata, non c'è nessun accordo sulle prospettive finanziarie, che sono ovviamente il nocciolo del problema.

In conclusione, non esiste soprattutto nessuna reale intenzione di ridiscutere l'iniquo assegno inglese. Si tratta di privilegio che viene pagato prevalentemente dall'Italia e dalla Francia, sottraendo preziose risorse ai nostri rispettivi paesi.


  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Mr President, from the spin of today one would think that much had been achieved at Hampton Court, but as we have already heard, the verdict of the informed EU press was almost universally negative. One press agency reported that many papers could not recall a more useless and shallow example of posturing with no outcome. One paper talked of a bizarre show of relaxed leaders who dodged the most crucial issues facing Europe. Another called it a summit of impasse with a facade of forced smiles. The Financial Times said in an article that the leaders attempted to answer the question of what impact globalisation would have on the European economy and concluded that we needed more research and development and, of course, more money. In other words, they failed to answer the question. The EU, the Financial Times said, is the wrong institutional platform from which to deal with globalisation. It has become too large and divided. The appropriate political levels are national governments and the eurozone. I suggest that the article in the Financial Times comes close to the truth. If individual Member States were to expend the same effort and energy addressing the issue of how, as nations, to compete in a global market as they did in preparing showcase summits, then I suspect we might all see much more product.

My biggest fear arising from the failure of the Hampton Court summit and a lacklustre British Presidency is that it will make my government over-eager to secure a face-saving deal on the budget in December and that, as a result, Mr Blair will concede far too much on the British rebate, just so it can be said that something was achieved by the British Presidency – that is to say something other than ensuring EU bankruptcy by opening the door to Turkish accession.


  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am very sorry but I am afraid I have to be a little bit churlish as well. The summit at Hampton Court was what I warned it would be: something of a talking shop – or even a talking palace. And I think that Mr Straw’s speech was as Churchill once said ‘a pudding without a theme’.

First the Prime Minister downgraded the Hampton Court meeting to one day. He then constructed an agenda that was thin on specifics and avoided all the major and pressing issues facing the EU and finally, amazingly, he decided there would be no communiqué at the end. These are hardly the hallmarks of a Presidency and Prime Minister leading the agenda and shaping our future. I am frankly surprised the Presidency has anything at all to report to us from the summit. At least, however, this Parliament is receiving a report, something which the Prime Minister failed to give the British House of Commons in the aftermath of the event.

The Informal Council was a wasted opportunity. Europe needs direction on economic reform. Instead, the Presidency produced a couple of discussion papers written by academics and even these were not discussed. Europe needs direction on reforming the so-called social model. Again all we had were a few worthy but irrelevant discussion papers. Europe needs direction on being more flexible and responsive. However, the fundamental issue of what to do following the rejection of the Constitution was not even on the table for discussion. Europe also needs direction on its future financing. There are serious issues here, not least the question of the rebate. But the Presidency continues to avoid the matter and the drift continues.

I agree with Mr Barroso that the Presidency must make efforts to reach an outcome at the December Council. We will be looking carefully to see precisely what is contained there and whether Mr Blair ditches his previous commitments, in protecting the British rebate.

Transparency and openness is another issue for the Presidency. Recently I called for meetings of the Council to be held in public when it is operating in a legislative capacity. Mr Blair says he wants progress on this. I challenge the Presidency to implement such a procedure before its term of office ends and I look forward to the Council’s answer in this matter at Question Time following this debate.

What about the Court of Auditors’ report on the EU accounts? For the eleventh year in succession, the Court has been unable to give a statement of assurance on the accounts. This really must be sorted out by the Presidency. Drift and indecision have been a fundamental characteristic of the British Presidency. Indeed, the Prime Minister of Slovakia speaking on it said ‘silence reigns, we do not have information’. I must agree with that analysis and, whilst enjoying Mr Straw’s speech today, I cannot see that it takes us anywhere useful at all.

Hampton Court provided no evidence that the Presidency and particularly that the Prime Minister had any strategy. He gave every appearance of drifting from summit to summit unable or unwilling to provide the kind of leadership we British Conservatives called for in June. Let us hope that the last chance saloon at the forthcoming Brussels Summit will demonstrate that my disappointment with the British Presidency is actually misplaced.


  Gary Titley (PSE). – Mr President, recently a terrorist suspect wanted by the British Government was arrested and extradited from Rome in a matter of weeks. This was a direct result of the European arrest warrant; previously it could have taken years. This is just one example of the positive benefits the European Union brings to its citizens.

Each citizen has benefited from the single market by some EUR 6 000 a head in increased output. It is possible, if you wish, to swim in the sea off Blackpool in my region because of European Union laws that have improved the environment. Those are positive benefits for our citizens. We need to do more to shout those positive benefits.

I welcome the papers that were presented at Hampton Court, because they deal with how the European Union can bring added value to our citizens, particularly in the area of the energy markets where we have a crisis waiting to happen. However, we have to ensure that there is follow-up on these matters. One of the difficulties with the Lisbon Agenda in particular is that Member States themselves promise to deliver but do not. I would hope that out of the Hampton Court discussions came a clarification of the role of Member States and the important role of the European Commission in ensuring that Member States carry out that which they have already agreed. If that were to happen, the European Union could move much further forward without necessarily having any of the grand plans that some people have outlined in this debate. Let us stick to delivering what we agreed to deliver. That will be the key success of the European Union.

I congratulate the President-in-Office for the commitment made by this Presidency to Parliament. We are delighted at the extent to which ministers have engaged Parliament and particularly the extent to which the British Home Secretary has ensured that Parliament is involved in taking forward that security agenda. That is one of the most important dimensions of where the European Union is going in future to protect the interests of its citizens.



  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – Monsieur le Président, une rencontre pour rien ou pas grand chose, dans un cadre agréable, sous un chaud soleil d'automne, voilà ce que fut le Sommet informel d'Hampton Court. Aucun résultat concret, aucune avancée, aucune perspective. Bref, les chefs d 'État et de gouvernement n'ont même pas essayé d'esquisser un début de réponse à la crise profonde de l'Europe, comme si, finalement ils s'en accommodaient fort bien. Au lieu de cela, ils ont égrené comme à leur habitude la litanie de propositions mille fois répétées. Oui, bien sûr, il faut accroître l'effort européen en matière de recherche et de développement. Oui, bien sûr, il faut des centres d'excellence universitaire en Europe. Oui, bien sûr, il faut une politique commune de l'énergie. Oui, bien sûr encore, il faut une véritable politique d'immigration. Oui, bien sûr enfin, l'Europe a besoin d'une politique de sécurité.

Mais on en arrive toujours aux mêmes problèmes. Si on veut faire des choses en commun, il faut une volonté politique, il faut des institutions efficaces et démocratiques et il faut un budget commun. Or, force est de constater que, sur ces trois points, rien n'a été entrepris, ni même tenté, par la Présidence britannique. La Présidence britannique n'a pas seulement échoué à remettre l'Union en marche, elle a concouru à son affaiblissement. Désormais, sa responsabilité est clairement engagée.

Monsieur le Ministre, le Sommet de décembre sera celui de la dernière chance pour doter l'Europe d'un budget conséquent et redonner ainsi espoir à tous ceux qui croient en son avenir. Mais, ce sera aussi le dernier moment utile pour le Premier ministre britannique pour qu'il ne reste pas dans l'histoire comme l'homme qui aura contribué à l'échec européen, pour qu'il ne reste pas dans l'histoire comme celui qui aurait délibérément tourné la page de l'Union politique de l'Europe.


  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Ratspräsident, mit Verlaub, der Gipfel von Hampton Court war die größte Peinlichkeit, die sich eine Präsidentschaft je geleistet hat. Anstatt die dringenden Probleme wie die Finanzielle Vorausschau und die Verfassungsdebatte voranzubringen, wurden diese Punkte von der Tagesordnung gestrichen. Selbst dem gesetzten Thema "Soziales Europa" ist der Gipfel nicht gerecht geworden. Keines der Politikinstrumente für ein soziales Europa ist diskutiert worden, weder Mindeststandards noch Arbeitsgesetzgebung noch die Instrumente zur Beseitigung von Arbeitslosigkeit und sozialer Ausgrenzung.

Ihre Vorschläge, Herr Minister Straw, sind Kleinstaaterei und bringen das soziale Europa nicht voran. Statt Aktionen gab es nur Ideen; statt mit proaktiven Maßnahmen der Globalisierung zu begegnen, haben Sie mit reaktiven Maßnahmen reagiert, wie z.B. diese Idee des Anti-Schock-Fonds. Ziel darf es aber nicht sein, ein rückwärts gewandtes Europa zu entwickeln, sondern das Ziel muss ein zukunftsfähiges Europa sein.


  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – Não basta constatar que há problemas sociais na União Europeia e no mundo. Tal como o meu grupo referiu antes da cimeira informal de final de Outubro, é fundamental analisar as causas e alterar as políticas que estão na origem desta situação.

Mas a verdade é que o que ouvimos aqui não dá garantias dessa disposição para alterar políticas, mesmo quando é notório o crescente descontentamento das populações e se vivem tensões sociais sérias em diversos países, mesmo aqui no coração da União Europeia.

Em vez das propostas que se exigem para dar uma resposta efectiva aos graves problemas sociais, o Conselho insiste na cartilha neoliberal que já todos bem conhecemos. A Estratégia de Lisboa, com as liberalizações e privatizações de serviços públicos nas mais diversas áreas, aliada a uma cada vez maior precarização do trabalho que a famigerada proposta de directiva de criação de um mercado interno dos serviços é um exemplo a que se junta, nalguns casos, o Pacto de Estabilidade para apertar ainda mais o garrote aos trabalhadores e às pequenas e médias empresas.

Sempre em nome da sacrossanta concorrência aposta-se em medidas que visam criar a concorrência entre os trabalhadores para tentar nivelar, cada vez por níveis mais baixos, os salários e outras prestações sociais. Daí a insistência numa maior flexibilidade laboral, na mobilidade e no apoio a reestruturações que reduzem empregos, contribuindo para mais desemprego e maior precariedade laboral.

Como o demonstra o enorme crescimento das taxas de lucros dos grandes grupos económico-financeiros da União Europeia, as políticas actuais visam fundamentalmente dar resposta à Agência da Unice. O que hoje aqui ouvimos vai no mesmo sentido. Mesmo quando se referem à necessidade de criar um ambiente favorável às empresas, sabemos todos que estão a referir-se apenas às grandes empresas.

Aliás, ontem, o Comissário Mandelson tornou-o aqui bem claro nas respostas que deu às preocupações com as consequências da liberalização do comércio internacional em sectores industriais altamente sensíveis para países do Sul, como os têxteis, o vestuário e o calçado, que estão a ser utilizados como moeda de troca para obter ganhos para sectores de alta tecnologia e de serviços nas negociações da OMC. É isto que é preciso inverter.


  Mario Borghezio (IND/DEM). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, si ha l'impressione che i capi di Stato e di governo riuniti a Hampton Court abbiano discusso sotto una campana di vetro.

Sui grandi temi sociali, economici e politici, che sono stati evocati in molti interventi precedenti, sono stati raggiunti risultati decisamente scarsi. Mi sembra molto grave che, mentre in mezza Europa le città bruciano, si parli in termini così generici e approssimativi dell'immigrazione e dell'emergenza sociale ed economica, che sono invece la causa di quanto sta avvenendo a Parigi, Strasburgo e Bruxelles.

La sfida che ci lanciano questi ragazzi in rivolta è invece una sfida molto grave e pericolosa, sulla quale dovremmo riflettere seriamente quando parliamo di immigrazione. Non intendo certo puntare il dito contro questi giovani, ma piuttosto contro chi ha elaborato queste politiche sbagliate, contro chi ancora oggi parla di immigrazione in termini così burocratici, generici e superficiali.

Abbiamo perso la sfida dell'immigrazione. Le politiche dell'immigrazione hanno rappresentato un fallimento per l'Europa e ritengo sia nostro dovere prenderne atto e discuterne. Penso che questo summit avrebbe dovuto dare indicazioni in tal senso e credo che la soluzione proposta dalla Commissione, ovvero lo stanziamento di una manciata di soldi per le banlieux parigine, non sia una risposta adeguata.

E' invece necessario intervenire a monte, cambiare la politica e frenare le scelte dissennate, come i facili ricongiugimenti familiari o i facilissimi riconoscimenti di nazionalità. In sostanza, c'è bisogno di una politica seria in materia di immigrazione.


  Armando Dionisi (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Ministro, signor Presidente Barroso, il confronto aperto dai Primi ministri e dai capi di Stato a Hampton Court rappresenta una significativa presa di coscienza delle difficoltà che vive attualmente l'Unione europea. Il clima di ritrovata serenità fra i 25, dopo le tensioni dei mesi scorsi, e la volontà di chiudere il negoziato sulle prospettive finanziarie entro dicembre devono essere valutati in maniera positiva.

Vorrei tuttavia richiamare l'attenzione del Consiglio sul fatto che non si può raggiungere un accordo al ribasso e, soprattutto, che non si può ignorare la posizione del Parlamento. Le priorità individuate da Tony Blair per il rilancio dell'Europa, vale a dire la ricerca, l'innovazione e la formazione permanente, costituiscono proposte da condividere, che sono infatti contenute anche nella nostra relazione sulle prospettive finanziarie.

Inoltre, anche la necessità di una politica energetica europea, l'aumento dell'aiuto comunitario per i paesi di transito degli immigrati e il fondo di compensazione per la globalizzazione costituiscono obiettivi prioritari per l'Europa, che necessitano tuttavia di risorse finanziarie adeguate.

I cittadini dell'Unione sono consapevoli del fatto che ormai nessun governo, da solo, può fornire una risposta ai più gravi problemi attuali, quali la disoccupazione, la precarietà, la perdita di competitività, il terrorismo internazionale e l'immigrazione clandestina. Solo l'Europa può rispondere positivamente e garantire benessere e sicurezza ai nostri paesi. Un bilancio magro non permetterà di raccogliere queste sfide e il Consiglio europeo di ottobre rappresenta una premessa positiva. E' per questo motivo che guardiamo con moderato ottimismo al Vertice di dicembre.


  Bernard Poignant (PSE). – Monsieur le Président, j'ai regardé dans mon dictionnaire de langue française ce que voulait dire informel. Informel, en langue française, signifie mal formé et disgracieux. Cet adjectif était employé par Montaigne en 1580 pour qualifier quelque chose qu'on a du mal à définir. Je vous laisse juge du sommet d'Hampton Court et du fantôme de Catherine Howard.

Vous n'avez pas de chance, en tant que Président britannique. La France a dit non et on demande au Royaume-Uni de relancer l'Europe. Je trouve que c'est beaucoup. Cela dit, pendant de nombreuses années, quelques horizons s'offraient à nos concitoyens, avec lesquels ils vivaient et on les faisait vivre, et qui sont la réunification de l'Europe, la Constitution, la Charte des droits, le marché unique et la monnaie unique.

Si je pense à nos concitoyens, je me dis que Lisbonne ne remplit pas cette fonction. Aujourd'hui, c'est le vide. À la limite, je ne conteste pas les priorités du Sommet. Ce n'est pas le problème. Le problème, c'est le lien avec le citoyen. C'est comme s'il y avait quelque chose que l'on partageait qui a un peu disparu. Je pense que le Sommet prochain ou ceux d'après doivent nous permettre de retrouver un horizon à partager avec nos concitoyens. Bien sûr, on pense à la cohésion des 25. On appelle parfois cela le Plan Marshall, pour ceux qui nous rejoignent. Parce que l'élargissement sans fin et l'avarice sur le financement n'échappent pas au regard des citoyens. Ce n'est pas bon du tout. Selon moi, il serait bon de reprendre, malgré tout, le mot "harmonisation" dans l'écriture européenne, en quelque sorte en voie d'extinction, ce qui est également malheureux. D'autant qu'il reste des choses à harmoniser. On ne va pas tout harmoniser mais il est encore possible de progresser dans quelques domaines. Et si on oublie de le faire, si on néglige ce mot et cette valeur, les citoyens s'éloigneront alors.

Enfin, un autre domaine me tient à cœur, celui des échanges entre les jeunes. J'ai consulté les statistiques. En 2005-2006, l'Europe finance 280 000 jeunes dans le cadre des trois programmes: Comenius, Erasmus et Leonardo. Or, ils sont 58 millions. Multiplier le budget correspondant par dix ne nous coûterait pas trop cher, d'autant que c'est avec ces jeunes qu'il faut jouer la conscience européenne.


  Jack Straw, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, I would like to deal with two specific points and then comment more widely on the debate. Mrs Riis-Jørgensen asked me about the Court of Auditors and she asked for a yes or no answer. My apologies, but I have to give a yes and a no because this matter is in the hands of finance ministers, and you know what they are like! The answer is that the Ecofin Council on 8 November adopted conclusions listing a range of actions for both the Commission and Member States. They talked about a roadmap which they said was vital, not least because it focuses greater attention on Member States’ responsibility to improve their systems of auditing and to take responsibility for the money spent in their countries. My judgement is that where Member States have control of the money, they ought properly to account for it as well. If they do not have control of it then the European Union will have to account for it, but I am with you on encouraging our finance ministers to get a grip on this. Nevertheless, this is the responsibility of the Commission and of this Parliament together. We all have responsibility for this.

On the issue of transparency, which Mr Kirkhope raised with me, we will shortly be circulating an options paper with ideas for improving transparency, and essentially will be putting two options before the Council. It will be up to the Council to take a decision on the basis of a simple majority, as with all procedural issues, so I am glad to be able to satisfy you in this respect, Mr Kirkhope, if not in any others.

Colleagues here have been very frank, so I will be frank in return. My problem with what a number of colleagues have said is that people refer to the need for change and then say that the future for the European Union nevertheless lies in the past. All I can say to colleagues here is that globalisation is a fact of life. The French, my comrade friend, may not like it, but we either have to deal with it or it will engulf all of us. I did not invent it, President Barroso did not invent it and nor indeed did President Chirac, but it is a fact of life. It has come about as a result of other policies that we have pursued over many years, namely to build up the World Trade Organization, to encourage free trade and to lift countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America out of poverty, meaning that they now want to share in trade and they want to work to their competitive advantage, just as we have done in the past. That means that the old European economic and social model will not work to deliver prosperity, social justice and jobs in the way it used to. This is a big challenge, especially, if I may say so, for the country you represent, and for a number of others on the continent. However, I simply do not understand why you continue to clutch at old methods, such as inflexible methods of labour regulation, including the Working Time Directive, which may have worked in the past but which cannot work for the future.

France is a country which knows that, and it is for that reason there is a higher level of evasion in France than in other countries. France is one of those countries which goes in for saying, as we understand it, that people can be assessed on whether they work 48 hours a contract rather than 48 hours an employer. We do not want to be lectured about our employment practices when we enforce the law, even if it is inconvenient, by countries which bang the drum for enforcement and then go through the back door to ensure that the law is not enforced. This is a fact, and this Parliament undermines confidence in its own measures if it turns a blind eye to what is going on when everyone knows that this has happened.

Moreover, it is better to be flexible. There is no European-wide requirement to set a minimum wage, which in my view is a fundamental human right. There is no requirement on it, however, and it is left to national governments. Some countries have a minimum wage and some do not, so why should there be a dirigiste requirement across Europe regardless of national circumstances and the nature of employment contracts, to set limits on working hours when the test for that ought to be health and safety? The countries that apparently have slightly longer hours actually have a better health and safety record than some other countries, including, my friend, your own.

Turning to the important issue of the budget, I listened very carefully to President Barroso’s speech. He said that the defining issue of the British Presidency will be the financial perspective, which is a test of whether Europe is on the move. It certainly is a test of whether Europe is on the move, but we do not regard it as the defining issue. If you asked me to bet on what historians will judge to be the defining issue of this Presidency in ten or twenty years’ time, I would not bet on it being whether or not we reached agreement on the financial perspective in December, although I hope we do. I think it will be judged on the fact that on 3 October we agreed to start negotiations with Croatia and Turkey. That is what will help to shape Europe for the future. I would remind colleagues that the last financial perspective was not agreed until the equivalent of the March Council 2006, rather than the December Council 2005.

We very much hope that we can reach agreement, but it is going to be difficult. Why? Well, Mr Jonckheer spoke of not allowing this issue to be dominated by national egos. I agree with that but would say to colleagues – and they know this to be true – that this debate is bound to be dominated by the different national perspectives and by whether a country has traditionally been a high contributor or a net recipient of funds from the European Union. That is a fact. If one ignores that or abuses those of us – including Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and a number of other Member States whose citizens have real concerns about the amount they have paid in the past and the amount they will pay in the future – by saying that this is all about national egotism, we will not get anywhere.

I would remind those colleagues from Belgium that their country has been a net recipient, despite the fact that it is a wealthy country, and will continue to be so under any of the exemplifications of the budget between 2006, 2007 and 2013. Luxembourg – a country that I like very much – is the richest country in Europe but will continue to be a net beneficiary. If we were in that happy position we would be saying to the Presidency: ‘Come on, do a deal’. If the only issue was whether we ended up with EUR 3 billion or EUR 6 billion in our pockets, that would be easy.

The problem, however, for a number of Member States – and not just the United Kingdom – is that we have historically been very high contributors. I am just saying this so that colleagues can understand the problem we have within the United Kingdom. We might as well lay our cards on the table and be frank. The problem is that over the latest financial perspective the UK has paid EUR 39 billion, France has paid EUR 28 billion, Italy has paid EUR 24 billion and Germany has paid EUR 77 billion, which is another extreme. However, the UK has still paid EUR 39 billion, which in population terms is much more than those other two countries. Spain has benefited by EUR 48 billion and Portugal by EUR 14 billion, so that puts a different perspective on things.

I agree that we have all got to pay our way for enlargement. With any, even the most minimal, change to the financial perspective, or no change at all, the United Kingdom would be paying another EUR 11 billion – getting on for another third more – towards the next financial perspective to pay for enlargement.

The issue is not whether the United Kingdom or the better off countries pay a bit more for enlargement – though some better off countries would not pay anything extra – but of how much more one pays in a context in which the United Kingdom has, over the last 20 years, paid 2.5 times the equivalent of say France or Italy, notwithstanding the fact that our GNIs have been equivalent over that period. That is the problem. We are working through it. We see our responsibility as being to the Union as well as to our publics. No one can accuse my Prime Minister of not being courageous or of not being very committed to this Union, as we have done a great deal. I just wanted to make that clear so that everyone understands the difficulties we all face.

The last thing point I wish to make, on a more hopeful tack, is that President Barroso spoke very eloquently about the fact that the European Union has to do less in some areas and more in others, and I think that is exactly the right way of looking at things. This is not about a minimalist Europe, because Europe’s achievements have been astonishing over the last 60 years when one recalls the condition of conflict which had characterised Europe for three centuries prior to that. When I look around other areas of conflict today, particularly the Middle East, with horror, it reminds me of the Britain that I grew up in as a young child just after the war and of the even worse conditions that existed on the Continent. That is the European Union’s achievement. What we have to do for the future, however, is to build on that achievement and recognise that the challenges are a little different.

One of the areas in which we can do the greatest good, and are doing so with the great leadership of Javier Solana and the Commission, is in the field of foreign, defence and security policy. Take what was agreed yesterday by Condoleezza Rice and Javier Solana. Take the fact that the European Union is now the third party in that agreement to allow Palestinians to travel in and out of Gaza and the West Bank. We were not always regarded by the government of Israel as the third party in such matters. Take what we are doing together with respect to Iran, take the joint declaration we have just agreed with Afghanistan and take the tangible increase in aid of Africa. It is here that we can see real progress being made by Europe collectively. It is in this area, as well as in many others, that we need to do more, and at the same time rebalance what the Union does compared to what national, regional and local government does in respect of domestic policy.

This Presidency has been a great privilege for us, Mr President. I have certainly enjoyed it, and I look forward to another six weeks of interesting times here in Strasbourg, Brussels and in other cities.


  Lapo Pistelli (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, credo che la Presidenza britannica e Tony Blair siano in realtà vittime della grande aspettativa che il Premier britannico aveva sollevato con l'intervento del 2 luglio in questo Parlamento. E' ovvio che quando si creano grandi aspettative, grande è poi anche la delusione.

Il tempo è agli sgoccioli, i risultati scarseggiano e io credo che la Presidenza britannica non si debba stupire del criticismo che il Parlamento sta esprimendo in questo dibattito. In realtà, più che di un Consiglio informale, si è trattato di un Consiglio inconsistente, che nel mese precedente avrebbe dovuto discutere del modello sociale europeo e che si è trovato, invece, ad affrontare una discussione sul mondo a 360 gradi, senza prendere nessuna decisione.

Non mi brucerò in piazza per questa Costituzione, ma credo che emerga con grande forza un limite delle Presidenze semestrali. Infatti, ogni Presidenza eredita l'agenda della Presidenza precedente e aggiunge un nuovo strato di impegni, facendo aumentare l'indice delle decisioni da prendere e diminuire il capitolo delle decisioni adottate. Noi continuiamo ad aggiungere ingredienti alla torta, ma la torta non esce mai dal forno.

Vorrei citare un esempio che ho fatto ieri sera al Presidente Barroso. E' vero che in passato l'Europa ha vissuto altre crisi profonde. Io non sono un nostalgico dell'Europa a sei, né credo ci sia un'età d'oro alla quale guardare. Tuttavia, quando si è lasciati dalla fidanzata a diciotto anni, la vita sembra molto dura ma si è consapevoli del fatto che le cose andranno comunque avanti, mentre quando finisce un matrimonio a quarantacinque anni, con cinque figli e il mutuo della casa da pagare, tutto è più complicato. Mi sembra che l'Europa, in questa fase che segue l'allargamento e precede la Costituzione, si trovi in una situazione molto più simile al secondo caso che non al primo.

Io non temo la crisi istituzionale, le prospettive finanziarie o la strategia di Lisbona di per sé, ma ho paura che tutti questi elementi nel loro insieme stiano arrecando un grave danno all'Unione europea.

La presidenza britannica dispone ancora di sei settimane per portare a termine il suo lavoro e spero che sia in grado di dare un messaggio positivo all'Europa di domani.




  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, normally I would complain that one minute is not enough to sum up a presidency in its latter stages, but not in this instance. UK Presidency: no progress.

It is interesting that Mr Straw commented on the sparse attendance here and made an extremely limp attempt to be humorous about it. The fact is that most of my colleagues had better things to do than to listen to him give the same speech today that Tony Blair gave at the start of the Presidency and then repeated with minor variations just a couple of weeks ago.

I had hoped, had Mr Straw still been here, to ask him the same question that Mr Alexander failed to answer when I put it to him directly a couple of weeks ago, but I will ask it again. Will the UK Presidency give an assurance that the interests of Scotland’s fishing communities will not be traded away in the interests of something more important to Whitehall in the mess of horse-trading it has stored up for itself for the December Council, and for the subsequent Fisheries Council, which will be almost the last act of the Presidency?


  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – Dámy a pánové, zásadně odmítám odpovídat na výzvy globalizace zřízením tzv. globalizačního fondu. Je jen odsouváním problému a populismem politiků, kteří se bojí říci občanům pravdu, tedy že globalizace zde je, byla a také bude a že nevede jen ke ztrátám pracovních míst, ale také, a to zejména, ke vzniku nových pracovních příležitostí. Hlavně se z ní dá těžit, ale jen ve svobodném tržním prostředí, které je pružné a kde se vyplatí pracovat. Evropská politika je často v rozporu s touto realitou, vybízí občany k pasivitě a někdy odměňuje i lenost. Už 10 let klesá podíl Evropské unie na světovém obchodě a podíl Spojených států a zejména Číny a Indie prudce rostou. Tak oceňuje unijní politiku volný trh a leadeři pětadvacítky reagují opět přerozdělováním, které je možná náplastí na přítomnost, ale v žádném případě není lékem pro budoucnost. Jsem přesvědčená, že namísto hádek o protekcionistický globalizační fond by měly země Unie urychleně reformovat své pracovní trhy. Odkládání těchto reforem totiž podkopává podporu veřejnosti pro politiku volného trhu a je živnou půdou pro růst nacionalismu, xenofobie a rasizmu.


  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président en exercice du Conseil, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, mes chers collègues, l'Union européenne fait face à une crise d'identité, à une perte de ses valeurs, à un désenchantement général. Pour la première fois depuis longtemps, les Européens craignent que leurs enfants vivent moins bien qu'eux. Comment pouvons-nous réagir et apporter des éléments de réponse face à ces graves préoccupations?

Le Sommet de Hampton Court se voulait une étape dans cette réflexion. Je crains qu'il n'en soit ressorti que peu de résultats concrets car, si les questions posées étaient fondées, à savoir: "existe-t-il un ou des modèles européens dans un monde globalisé", les éléments de réponse apportés à cette question manquaient pour le moins de lisibilité.

L'Europe est plongée dans une crise car elle ne sait pas ce qu'elle veut. Elle est partagée, certains ayant pour seul objectif d'en faire une zone commerciale, sans barrières tarifaires, bref une Europe courant derrière le train de la mondialisation avec une Union qui s'élargirait sans fin. D'autres ont une vision différente, une ambition politique selon laquelle l'Union doit être définie par ses frontières et par son projet afin de s'affirmer et de faire partager ses valeurs humanistes dans un monde déstabilisé.

Les députés européens UMP, ainsi que la grande majorité des membres du groupe PPE-DE, ont clairement choisi de se battre pour que la deuxième vision l'emporte, conscients du défi qu'il nous faut relever.

Les propositions de la France, divulgées à travers toute l'Union par le Président Chirac à la veille du Sommet, ont le mérite de mettre l'accent à la fois sur la nécessité d'achever le marché intérieur, de promouvoir la solidarité entre les États et d'assurer l'émergence d'une Europe des grands projets.

Mais pour envisager une relance européenne, le Conseil européen doit au préalable lever un obstacle fondamental. Car à partir du moment où, à l'issue des négociations entreprises par la Présidence luxembourgeoise, la presque totalité des États membres sont parvenus à un avis convergent sur les perspectives financières 2007–2013, ceux-ci doivent impérativement trouver un accord d'ici la fin de cette année. Tout autre débat se résumerait à de pures conjectures.



  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais intervenir pour une motion d'ordre, conformément à l'article 65, point c, si mes souvenirs sont corrects. On vient d'entendre le ministre britannique des affaires étrangères. Je pose, par l'intermédiaire de votre présidence, la question suivante à la Conférence des présidents. Un collègue vient de prendre la parole pour une minute. Le ministre de Sa Majesté britannique chargé des affaires européennes est avec nous. Comment le Parlement européen peut-il se voir limiter le temps de parole à une minute pour réagir? Peut-être pourriez-vous en parler avec vos collègues de la Conférence des présidents, pour décider de l'approche à adopter à l'avenir?


  Le Président. – Merci Monsieur Beazley, je crois qu'on a compris votre argument. Ce sont les groupes politiques qui répartissent les temps de parole. S'ils ont envie de laisser dix minutes, un quart d'heure à leurs orateurs principaux, c'est leur droit, dans le cas contraire aussi. Les temps de la Commission et du Conseil ne sont, eux, pas comptés. Mais les uns et les autres ont à coeur de veiller à ne pas en abuser, je l'ai remarqué.


  Nicola Zingaretti (PSE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Ministro, io sono tra coloro che hanno apprezzato e apprezzano lo sforzo fatto invece da questa Presidenza per tentare di rilanciare l'Europa, con le sue speranze e le sue sfide, in un momento drammatico.

Questo è avvenuto con atti e impegni anche concreti. Mi riferisco alla positiva soluzione della vicenda della Turchia, che non sarebbe stata possibile senza un forte impegno della Presidenza britannica, e alla capacità di indicare una via, una prospettiva e degli obiettivi chiari che si sono poi concretizzati, almeno nelle vocazioni, a Hampton Court, vale a dire l'università, l'energia, la sicurezza e la politica di difesa.

Mi permetta tuttavia di dire che, proprio guardando a quelle grandi ambizioni e ai pochi risultati concreti, mi convinco sempre di più - e invito anche tutti voi a riflettere su questo punto - del fatto che esiste un'enorme contraddizione tra le vocazioni di quell'Europa e l'illusione che quei risultati possano essere raggiunti con un'Europa che possiede meno risorse di quelle necessarie e che soprattutto non è disposta a modificare sue regole.

Intendo dire che se vogliamo raggiungere anche solo la metà di quegli obiettivi e vogliamo essere leali tra di noi, occorre andare a fondo sui nodi della crisi. Questi nodi implicano più risorse, che devono essere utilizzate in modo migliore, meno Europa intergovernativa e più Europa dell'integrazione, più Europa politica, ovvero regole nuove per la Commissione, proprio per raggiungere gli obiettivi che ci siamo prefissi.

La definizione di una nuova architettura istituzionale e la sempre maggiore condivisione di politiche rappresentano ormai una via obbligata per il futuro. Il mantenimento dello status quo, che rappresenta forse il maggiore risultato ottenuto dal semestre britannico, porterà inevitabilmente a una rinazionalizzazione delle politiche, aggravando la crisi, aumentando il potere di veto dei governi e l'incapacità decisionale dei vertici.

Spero quindi che questo semestre riesca a convincere anche i più scettici del fatto che non basta avere buone idee e buona volontà, ma che occorre prendere atto del fatto che o si ha il coraggio di cambiare, facendo un salto in avanti sulla via dell'integrazione, oppure si muore.


  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Mr President, I would be fascinated to know at what stage the British Presidency realised that to have adopted as its logo a flight of birds heading towards Europe was a mistake!

If the British Presidency does not secure a deal on the future budget perspectives, it will not be regarded as a success.

I agree that movement has to be made on the issue of agriculture. While the British Presidency has to recognise that, at some point, it is going to have to compromise, it is also important for other Member States to realise that they must give too. At some point the French – above all, it seems – must give something to enable those seeking a deal to be able to point to future changes and reviews of the agricultural policy, not just to help the UK out of a difficult situation but to help the world secure an agreement on the Doha Development Round.


  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Herr Ratspräsident, ich hoffe, Sie spüren, dass die Ungeduld mit ihrer Präsidentschaft steigt und die Enttäuschungen wachsen. Ihre Zeit ist zwar noch nicht abgelaufen, aber der größere Teil ist bereits vorbei. Wir vermissen nicht nur Tony Blair, aber ich frage mich, ob er vielleicht endlich erkannt hat, dass zwei gute Reden noch keine erfolgreiche Ratspräsidentschaft bewirken. Wir vermissen aber vor allem konkrete Ergebnisse, konstruktive Vorschläge und ernsthafte Verhandlungen mit dem Europäischen Parlament zur Lösung der Probleme und zur Erarbeitung der Antworten auf die Fragen der Menschen.

Vertrauen schaffen wir nur mit einem neuen Miteinander und nachhaltigen Lösungen. Vielleicht hat sich Ihr Außenminister gerade ein bisschen verraten, als er nämlich nicht den Blick nach vorne gerichtet, sondern gesagt hat: „Die Bedeutung der Präsidentschaft liegt schon hinter uns, nämlich Kroatien und die Türkei.“ Ich frage Sie: Sind das wirklich die Prioritäten der Bürger Europas? Sind das wirklich die Fragen, die die Menschen, die keine Arbeit haben, Europa, das wettbewerbsfähiger werden muss, haben? Ich sage Nein. Vielleicht haben sie die falschen Prioritäten. Mit Absichtserklärungen alleine machen wir keine erfolgreiche Präsidentschaft. Alle sechs Punkte von Hampton Court, Herr Ratspräsident, sind zwar politisch richtig, aber sie sind großteils nicht die Kompetenz der Europäischen Union. Wenn Sie wollen, dass wir das erreichen, was Sie selbst postulieren, dann geben Sie uns die Kompetenzen, geben Sie uns das Geld, verhindern Sie nicht Europa auf dem Weg zur politischen Union. Verhindern Sie nicht die gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik.

Zur Finanziellen Vorausschau: Zwischen Ihrem Vorschlag und unserem liegen 70 Milliarden Euro. Zwischen Ihrem Vorschlag und dem Vertrag liegen 2 Milliarden Euro. Zwischen Ihrem Vorschlag und dem der Kommission liegen über 100 Milliarden Euro. Sagen den Menschen, was Sie Ihnen wegnehmen wollen, bevor Sie so tun, als wären Sie auf der Seite der Bürger....

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A Hampton Court-i csúcstalálkozó megmutatta, hogy az Európai Uniónak alapjaiban kell megújulnia. Az Uniónak egyszerre van szüksége a kutatás-fejlesztés harmonizálására, az oktatásra fordított összegek jelentős növelésére, a szolgáltatások liberalizálására és a közös európai energetikapolitikára. A diagnózis megvan, de a válaszokkal adósak Európa vezetői.

Azt tudjuk, hogy mit kellene tenni, de azt nem, hogyan lehet ezeket a célokat elérni. Nincsenek meg ehhez a megfelelő források sem. Több Európát nem lehet kevesebb pénzből megcsinálni. Továbbra sincs megegyezés a 2007–2013-as pénzügyi perspektíváról, ami számunkra, új tagállamok számára tragikus lehet, hiszen lehetséges pénzügyi támogatásunknak a kétharmadát veszíthetjük el. Számunkra ezért igen nagy a jelentősége a pénzügyi irányelveknek.

Azt is nagyon fontosnak tartom, amikor Tony Blair megtámadta a közös agrárpolitikát, hogy nem úgy kell nekünk előrehaladni, hogy az eddigi közösségi politikákat leromboljuk, hiszen a kohéziós politika és a közös agrárpolitika az Unió óriási vívmányai. Ezeket nem lerombolni kell, hanem más területeken kell több közösségi politikát megvalósítani. A nagy kérdés az, hogyan lehet mindezt megtenni.

Gyurcsány Ferenc magyar miniszterelnök azt javasolta, hogy a közösségi politikák mellett hozzunk létre koordinált együttműködést, amely azt jelentené, hogy a különböző területeken a nemzeti politikákat összehangolnánk. Ez nem jelentene új közösségi politikákat, de segítené akár az energia terén, akár a kutatás-fejlesztésben a jobb együttműködést. Kérem Barroso urat, kérem a Bizottságot, hogy segítsük, hogy Európa kigyógyuljon a jelenlegi válságából, lépjünk előre a koordinált együttműködés terén is.


  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Brytyjczycy słyną ze stalowych nerwów, dystansu, spokoju, swoistego poczucia humoru, a także z wielkiej powściągliwości w wyrażaniu swoich emocji. Dlatego też z wielkim zaskoczeniem przyjąłem wczoraj oświadczenie ministra Lorda Bacha, że jeżeli rozporządzenie REACH nie zostanie kompromisowo przyjęte w tym roku, to uzna to za klęskę Prezydencji Brytyjskiej i swoją.

Chciałbym dzisiaj zapytać Panie Ministrze, czy usłyszę te same słowa z Pańskich ust? Czy brak perspektywy budżetowej na lata 2007-2013 przyjętej w tym roku uzna Pan również za klęskę osobistą Pana oraz pana premiera Blaira?

Tony Blair wygłosił świetne przemówienie w czerwcu w Brukseli. Analiza kryzysu Europy godna lektury. Niestety kolejne miesiące, kolejne wystąpienia ministrów to tylko za każdym razem gorsze powielanie tez premiera Anglii. Mam wrażenie, że straciliście Panowie Brytyjczycy wolę walki o wprowadzenie Waszej wizji Unii Europejskiej. Postanowiliście się prześlizgnąć przez te sześć miesięcy Prezydencji. Niestety udzielił się Wam również pewien gen niemocy i paraliżu europejskiego.

Chociaż trzeba przyznać, że minister Straw przyciśnięty pytaniami i wystąpieniami na tej sali wreszcie zaczął mówić normalnym głosem, tak jak powinni mówić politycy, o interesach. Europę można budować skutecznym działaniem, decyzjami, które zapiszą się na zawsze wielkimi trzcionkami w historii naszego kontynentu. Odkładanie debaty nad perspektywą budżetową na ostatnią chwilę, przygotowywanie jej założeń w ukryciu, zastępowanie twardej debaty o interesach nowomową o problemach cywilizacyjnych świata jest stratą czasu, albo świadomą grą, by ten gorący ziemniak, jakim jest budżet przerzucić w grudniu do Wiednia.

Dzisiaj najważniejsza jest perspektywa budżetowa. Szacuje się, że jeśli perspektywa ta nie zostanie przyjęta, nowe Państwa Członkowskie otrzymają w roku 2007 na swój rozwój 10 miliardów euro. W przypadku przyjęcia perspektywy suma ta wyniosłaby około 22 miliardów plus 3,5 miliarda na Rumunię i Bułgarię. Państwa te stracą więc około 60% możliwych środków. Proszę o poważne potraktowanie perspektywy budżetowej i rozpoczęcie działań, żeby skutecznie doprowadzić do jej przyjęcia w grudniu.


  Libor Rouček (PSE). – Dámy a pánové, dnes zde diskutujeme výsledky neformální schůzky Evropské rady v Hampton Courtu, nediskutujeme zde výsledky šestiměsíčního britského předsednictví. Pokud jde o Hampton Court, já jsem s výsledky spokojen a výsledky vítám. Schůzka jasně identifikovala šest oblastí, které jsou důležité pro přežití a úspěch Evropy v globalizovaném světě. Je to věda a výzkum, jsou to investice do našich univerzit, energetická politika, globální bezpečnost, společná zahraniční bezpečnostní politika.

Podíváme-li se například na situaci v energiích, Evropa je stále více a více závislá na jednom zdroji, dnes již z 65 %, a ten zdroj je v oblastech, které jsou velmi nestabilní, ať je to již posovětský prostor nebo Blízký a Střední Východ. K tomu důvodu potřebujeme společnou energetickou politiku, společnou zahraniční a bezpečnostní politiku, ale především také potřebujeme k financování těchto společných politik peníze. Zde bych se obrátil na britské předsednictví, aby udělalo co nejvíce nejenom pro nové členské země, ale i pro staré a aby v prosinci na této vrcholné schůzce opravdu došlo k poctivé a vyvážené dohodě. To bude ten největší úspěch britského předsednictví, o kterém budeme diskutovat 20. prosince. Já věřím, že výsledek bude pozitivní.


  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Mr Straw proudly told us that we have had 48 ministerial speeches during the British Presidency but I have to say that we have very little to show for any of them. I am amazed that with just a month to go before it comes to an end, the UK Presidency is still talking about agendas, strategies and timetables. I speak for those many people of East Anglia who want to see action, security, prosperity and a real change of direction in the EU, rather than empty promises.

Citizens of many countries have woken up to what has been happening in their name. They seriously question the nature and direction of the EU project. People want more local control over their own lives, but our governments continue to cede powers to regions and to Brussels. I ask you: what sort of relationship with what sort of Europe is right for our people and our nations in this first half of the 21st century?

That vital question is never asked by our government or by the EU institutions. It should perhaps have been the central question at Hampton Court. The fact is that at Hampton Court there was no fundamental reappraisal of the European Union. It just carries on regardless. There is no end to unhelpful legislation. Mr Straw mentioned the working time directive and the temporary workers directive. There are dozens more such irrelevant and interfering items of EU legislation on the stocks. What is being done about all this?

The budget was mentioned. Pretty fundamental, but still unresolved. In comparison with a similar sized economy such as France, the United Kingdom already contributes disproportionately to the EU budget and that is after Margaret Thatcher’s rebate. Apparently you want us to pay more. Meanwhile our nations and societies are being dangerously fractured as a consequence of catastrophic asylum and immigration policies. Instead of creating and sustaining world class centres of academic excellence, we are destroying them through lack of funding and misconceived class-driven doctrines. Our armed forces are desperately over-stretched and lack key items of equipment. At the same time gallant officers and soldiers are hung out to dry by a government-inspired system that cares little for their wellbeing but everything for its own political agenda…

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – Mr President, the Hampton Court Summit was to discuss how Europe could do better in the world. People in Ethiopia voted in their masses in May under EU eyes, but the first results did not please the ruling party. Suddenly, the observers were obstructed, media openness was suppressed and demonstrations were banned. People were brutally repressed in June: over 40 were killed and 5 000 arrested.

Despite that, a few weeks later, Prime Minister Meles attended the Gleneagles Summit hosted by the British Presidency. In September, several governments and the President of the Commission sent him messages of congratulation. On 1 November, another bloodbath took place: 58 elected leaders, journalists and NGO members are in jail and, according to the Prime Minister, face the death penalty; dozens more were killed, hundreds wounded and thousands were arrested. Yet, a few days later Mr Meles was officially wined and dined in Germany.

President-in-Office, why does the Council send contradictory signals instilling a sense of impunity in rulers who violate human rights and democratic principles, rulers who may then choose to go to war with neighbours to divert attention? Did you consider this at Hampton Court? Can the President-in-Office say that Europe is doing enough and doing its best for human rights, democracy and development in Ethiopia, the second most populous country in Africa?


  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, it is an honour to conclude this debate today on the discussions that took place at Hampton Court. It is a particular pleasure for me to be speaking alongside President Barroso.

The debate following the departure of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was taken forward by Mr Pistelli, who spoke of the European Union being like a family. Clearly, on the basis of our brief discussion this afternoon, it is a family within which, like any other family, there can be disagreements from time to time. But I certainly concur with his view that there are challenges that we face in the weeks ahead.

A rather less lofty point was then made by Mr Hudghton. As a fellow Scottish representative, a Member of Parliament representing a Scottish seat, I would happily spend all day debating with him why backward-looking nineteenth century nationalism offers no future to any part of Scotland, nor to any group within Scotland. But I, unlike him, am aware that I speak today for the Presidency of the European Union rather than simply rehearsing domestic political disputes between our parties.

Mrs Bobošíková spoke of the opportunities provided by globalisation. With that I certainly concur; that was a central focus of much of the constructive and useful discussion that took place at Hampton Court.

Mrs Sudre emphasised the need for agreement on future financing by the end of December. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, we are working towards that aim. Indeed, a number of other speakers addressed this continuing issue of the importance of reaching agreement. I will say a word about that in a moment.

Mr Zingaretti generously acknowledged the importance of Turkish accession. For that I am grateful. It reflects the distinctive approach taken by Jack Straw as the Foreign Secretary, whereby – somewhat similar to future financing – questions were raised as to the strategy the Presidency was adopting. I am glad to say that on the occasion of 3 October we secured the outcome for which so many of us had worked for so long: seeing the accession talks beginning both with Turkey and Croatia. I hope that we achieve a similar outcome in relation to future financing.

Mr Davies, who has now left the Chamber, again emphasised the importance of future financing. On the basis of the British motivation and indeed the British capacity to deliver the deal, what matters is not the will of one country – of the Presidency – but the willingness of all Member States to work together to find a consensus. If what mattered was simply the motivation of the Presidency, we would have seen agreement reached in June rather a situation in which five Member States were unable to accept the Luxembourg proposals.

Mr Karas questioned the importance of enlargement in the face of enduring significant competitive challenges that we face, such as unemployment. Surely the very point that he makes about enduring unemployment and the need for us to address those challenges, makes the case for Hampton Court. It is necessary for Europe to have a clearer sense as to its future direction before we would be able to try and secure the consensus we want on the basis of the financing of the European Union.

Mr Tabajdi offered a qualified welcome to particular aspects of the work programme that was agreed at Hampton Court and Mr Sonik quoted to me the earlier remarks of my ministerial colleague, Lord Bach. I am sorry to disappoint him: as regards future financing, there can be no guarantees that agreement can be reached. What I can guarantee is that the British Presidency is earnest in our endeavours to try and reach that agreement, but critical days and critical discussions lie ahead. It is important for all the relevant parties to recognise how significant the progress reached since June – where disunity rather than unity was the hallmark of the conclusion of the discussions – will need to be.

Mr Rouček said that he was content with the outcome of Hampton Court and argued for an honest, fair and well-balanced deal on future financing. With that I would have no disagreement. I disagree with many of the points that were raised by Mr Van Orden, who has now left the Chamber. He ranged very widely indeed while claiming to speak for the people of East Anglia, before having his microphone switched off. Suffice it to say that he did not have the chance during his speech to acknowledge the invaluable work that had been undertaken by the Commission in the course of the British Presidency on exactly that issue of better regulation. Today I pay tribute to the personal commitment of President Barroso and indeed to Commissioner Verheugen in driving forward this agenda during the British Presidency.

Mrs Gomes raised important challenging points in relation to human rights, democracy and development within Africa. Again, I would simply return to the progress that was made by European Union development ministers back in June, when we effectively agreed to double the level of overseas direct assistance provided by Member States from approximately USD 40 billion to USD 80 billion. I would re-emphasise the commitment reached at Gleneagles between 6 and 8 July effectively to double the aid being provided to Africa. I would reflect again on the very constructive and unified approach taken by European Union Member States at the Millennium Review Summit which took place in September of this year.

I should like to echo a point made earlier by Mr Davies, that those of us who are sincere and genuine in our commitment to help the developing world recognise that there is a continuing challenge that lies ahead of us in the remaining weeks of the British Presidency, which is to try and have an ambitious and balanced outcome to the Hong Kong ministerial meeting that will take place in December. I can assure Members that this remains a continuing priority of the British Presidency.


  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. Mr President, to sum up, there will be a defining issue for the British Presidency: to get an agreement on the financial perspectives. I think that message was very clearly transmitted to the British Presidency today.

I understand what the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said before he left about other issues that were very important and that will have strategic consequences. Precisely because of that, it is important to get an agreement on the financial perspectives, because this will be the first test for the enlarged Europe.

Let us be frank. There are some people who believe that with 25 Member States we cannot work and we cannot deliver. There are some people who believe that a greater Europe will be a weaker Europe. I know that is not the idea of the British Presidency, I know that is not the idea of the Commission. We believe in this greater Europe we are now building. We believe it is a great achievement that we now have 25 free, democratic Member States – as we have. However, we cannot do enlargement on the cheap. We need resources for this new Europe that we are helping to consolidate. That is why it is crucially important to have an agreement on the financial perspectives, because if not, if we do not have that instrument for what people are asking of the European institutions, there will be, and I really believe this, a crisis of confidence that will be reinforced in Europe. And this not only applies to the current situation in Europe, but also to the future of Europe, future accessions to Europe, to our capability to build a Europe. However, for a greater Europe we need greater politics. Pour une grande Europe, il nous faut une grande politique.

And that is the point. Are we ready? Are we able to do it? Can we deliver? That is why I urge the British Presidency to do everything in its power – and I well know the energy and commitment of your Prime Minister and indeed of all your officials – to get an agreement.

Of course everyone has to move: it is not only the responsibility of the British Presidency. Of course it is not. But I really believe the key to the problem, or it would be better to say the key to the solution, is in your hands. You can achieve that agreement, at least among Member States. We came very close in the last formal European Council: we can do it. It is crucially important and it is my duty and my responsibility, as President of the European Commission – which has to represent the general European interest – to call on the responsibility of all leaders in Europe to make the best efforts to achieve that compromise.

Let me tell you very frankly, President-in-Office, from my contacts with all the Member States – which, because of my responsibility, I have to keep on a daily basis, especially with the new Member States – I know they look to you and to the role of your Presidency with this expectation. In fact, everything that we have done so far has been, from my point of view, a great contribution for Europe. As I said in my previous statement, I think that the Hampton Court Summit was a good summit, it made a good contribution to that new, emerging consensus about a stronger, more modern Europe. However, the test in the minds of the new Member States, the test for a major proportion of the European public centres around whether we can really show that we are on the move on those concrete questions. That is the great challenge. So let us do our best, let us ask all the Heads of State and Government to be ready to compromise; let us ask the British Presidency to do its very best. I believe it is possible. It is difficult but it is possible, and the real test for our leadership is to make possible that which is necessary and I believe we can do it.



  Le Président. – Le débat est clos.

Pravno obvestilo - Varstvo osebnih podatkov