Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 7 June 2007 - Brussels

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR:
MRS ΚΡΑΤSΑ-ΤSΑGΑRΟPΟULΟU
Vice-President

(The sitting opened at 9.40 a.m.)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Preparations for the European Council (21 to 22 June) and the situation with regard to the revision of the Treaties (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on preparations for the European Council (21-22 June) and the situation with regard to the revision of the Treaties.

  Frank-Walter Steinmeier, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much indeed for inviting me to visit your Parliament; the invitation is a timely one. As you are all aware, we are currently engaged in tackling a summit, the summit in question being that of the G8 in Heiligendamm, but we, too, are perfectly well aware that there is another looming up in about a fortnight’s time, and that one – as I am sure you will agree – will be an event with a decisive impact on Europe’s future, something about which you and we both hope all participants in the European Council are not in doubt either. I can, at any rate, assure you that I have never in my life had to have as many bilateral talks with my European partners and counterparts as I have had to do over the last couple of weeks, and other members of the German Federal Government, right the way up to our Chancellor, are of course doing likewise.

It was only two and a half months ago that we – in Berlin, in Brussels and throughout Europe – celebrated 50 years of European unity. The European Union is a model of success. Speaking as a foreign minister who frequently has to travel around outside the borders of the European Union, I can tell you that it is a model that makes many people around the world envious of us. Somebody in Germany remarked that, even if the European Union had managed to keep Europe peaceful and stable for only 50 years, that would have been sufficient justification for its having been founded.

As you know, it has been far more successful than that, for its borders are open and it forms a single market with 500 million people living in it. Although the European Union can point to disadvantaged regions that have now achieved growth and prosperity, we all know that this sort of success does not happen automatically and that there is no guarantee of similar successes over the next 50 years, and so it was that, even on 25 March, on Europe’s birthday, we knew that the task facing us today and the European Council in particular would not be easy ones.

What this is about is nothing less than the creation of a renewed basis on which the European Union will function, a new treaty framework that will enable us to remain effective as an enlarged Union in the world of the twenty-first century. Laying the ground for successful treaty reform will be the main topic of the forthcoming European Council on 21 and 22 June.

Much is being expected of the summit, and I believe we would be well advised not to encourage people to expect still more of it; as Balthasar Gracián put it back in the seventeenth century, ‘The real can never equal the imagined, for it is easy to form ideals but very difficult to realise them’. We would do well, then, to adopt a realistic approach to the European Council.

I am, nevertheless, optimistic, for the EU has shown, particularly over recent months, that it is capable of resolute action when its Member States are ready for it. I am thinking here of the groundbreaking decisions taken on climate and energy at the last Spring Summit, which will serve, as the debate in Heiligendamm is showing, as, in some sense, benchmarks for the whole international debate on how to handle climate change; or you may want to take as examples two very contemporary European lawmaking projects, in the shape of the roaming regulation and the creation of a single European payment area, in both of which projects, I know, your House had a very considerable part to play.

Among the things that the forthcoming European Council will be thinking about will be concrete policies that serve the people of Europe, responsible and forward-looking action in our dealings with the outside world, and I can tell you that we, quite apart from the big issue of the Constitution, will be concerning ourselves with such things as the efforts towards a common integration policy. While we did the right thing by joining with the North African transit countries in seeking solutions on which we can agree, we do know that any immigration policy must amount to more than just beefing up Frontex and toughening up the coastguards in the North African states, for the transit states need help, and, most of all, the states that most of the refugees coming to Europe have left need economic stabilisation. The joint talks that have now been arranged by the European ministers of the interior and of labour are very much to be welcomed.

Another area of policy in justice and internal affairs that matters a great deal to people – particularly to those in the new Member States – is the extension of freedom to travel throughout the EU, and that is why we want to bring forward preparations for enlarging the Schengen area in such a way that the process can be completed in 2008. We will also, at the European Council, be submitting a report on the further development of the European Neighbourhood Policy. We have every interest – as your House agrees – in binding our southern and eastern neighbours as closely as possible to the European Union, and we will do so by means of increased sectoral cooperation – in energy, transport, participation in the internal market, adoption of EU law and through intensive exchange in education and culture, for example – and in these areas, much remains to be done.

Not least because I personally have had a hand in it, I am glad that it is possible to adopt a new EU strategy on Central Asia, a region that has not hitherto enjoyed much attention on Europe’s part, but one with which we must seek closer cooperation, not only – and let me take this opportunity to stress this – because of its economic possibilities, but also because it is very much affected by the instability on its southern borders, in Afghanistan and Iran, and because, since the regional tendency is towards moderate Islam, it will continue to be open to dialogue with us.

I am, of course, well aware that the success of the European Council is not dependent on the issues that I have just briefly mentioned. All of them are important, but its success or failure will of course be measured in terms of another issue, namely the success of treaty reform within the European Union. I am aware of the great deal of backing that the Presidency has received from your House in this matter, and I want to thank you for it. Yesterday, I had a chance to have a brief look at the Crespo-Brok report, from which I see that you have managed to maintain the tricky balance between striving for a positive and ambitious result and maintaining the necessary realism without which an agreement cannot be reached.

You are all familiar – for I find it described in the report – with the situation with which we are presented, in which 18 Member States have ratified. These 18 Member States are no easier negotiating partners for us than those which are in a different position with regard to the ratification process. As you know, there have been negative outcomes from some referendums, behind which lie people’s fears – fears felt, no doubt, not only in France and the Netherlands, fears that we were obliged – and still are obliged – to take seriously. Following the talks I have had with many of you, I see evidence in your House, too, of willingness to do likewise.

It has to be said, though, that, to judge by the most recent surveys, people in Europe are not against Europe; far from it, they want an EU that is capable of action and efficient, that concentrates on the essentials, that tackles problems and really sorts them out.

I am convinced that the great work of European reform, with which we embarked on this debate, goes a long way towards refuting the argument that still today underpins criticism of the EU, namely that it is too inefficient and too slow to take decisions, and so I am glad to hear, from all the people I have talked to around Europe, that they are willing to deliver the institutional reform package that I am convinced we so urgently need, for all of them know that it is institutional reform alone that will enable us to make Europe more democratic, more transparent and more efficient. Nor do I find any evidence of anyone believing that renegotiating this package of institutional reforms would put us in a better position.

The discussions I have had have also given me the impression that there was general agreement on specific policies such as the European Union’s external actions, justice and home affairs, energy policy and the social dimension, where it was generally agreed that what we have achieved so far must be maintained. There is discussion as to whether anything needs to be added to specific policies, and I note that there is a predominant willingness to make additions in the fields of climate change protection and energy solidarity, to which the European Council has stated that particular importance is to be attached.

I realise that you are looking with particular interest at the part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and an overwhelming majority, practically without exception, shares our view that we need to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding, that is to say, that we should hold fast to its binding legal character.

(Applause)

Others point out that its status as binding law must not be to the detriment of the Member States’ competences. I do believe in any case that we will manage to find a solution to this that will be endorsed by the European Parliament.

What I believe the consultations also showed is that people recognise that, by pressing on with this European reform, we are taking the idea of subsidiarity further, but there are, nevertheless, those who want to go further and again strengthen the hands of the national parliaments, and that is what much of the discussions with our European colleagues has been about. We understood what they wanted, and now we have to give it to them. While we will of course be submitting relevant proposals, I would argue that this should be done in a way that does not increase the opportunities for the use of the veto in Europe, for if the overall objective of making Europe effective is to remain intact, we must not allow the European institutional structure to be even more subject to vetoes than it already is.

(Applause)

I do, in any case, get the impression that all the interested parties take the Berlin Declaration seriously as regards the specific point that the elections to the European Parliament in 2009 are to take place on a renewed basis; there is a willingness to cooperate in this and – or so I would say following the talks I have had – even a new enthusiasm for it. It strikes me that a path is steadily being mapped out towards a solution that could bring forth agreement at the European Council.

What is clear is that we have not yet reached our destination; there are still something like two weeks left before the European Council, and we are of course using this time primarily for further consultations with those with whom we have not yet worked out an agreement on the potential solutions that have so far come to light, but let me repeat that there is a real chance of an agreement being reached, and, if we fail to seize it, there will not be another.

What will be crucial is that we summon up the shared political will to achieve an agreement. ‘Europe – succeeding together!’ – so we said at the outset of our presidency, and it will also be the motto for the forthcoming European Council.

While I am aware that many of you in this House would have liked to hear even more in detail about the individual conversations with the European Member States, I would ask you to understand that we have to maximise the prospects for the Council’s success, and so I would not wish, by making them public, to throw away what we have achieved, slowly but surely, in many conversations over recent weeks.

(Applause)

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Madam President, the next European Council will be a very important test of the European Union’s ability to deal with new and difficult challenges and to look ahead with ambition. The main issue, which will be the real test for the German Presidency, is the Treaty settlement, but the conclusions will touch on several other issues, and rightly so. It is important to show that the Union is willing to deliver the right policies for its citizens directly and by creating an effective and democratic Europe. This is all part of the same effort to move closer to citizens and to serve the common interest.

Mr Steinmeier has given a comprehensive overview of the Council agenda, so let me touch upon just three issues.

First, migration: the increasing challenges and opportunities posed by international migration must be addressed in a spirit of true solidarity. Recent events have underlined the importance of that. It means recognising that better coordination is needed to face up to the ever-increasing flows of migrants at our borders and in our seas but also to reap the benefits of migration for the labour market and for society at large. At the same time, illegal migration and trafficking in human beings are on the rise and require our immediate attention.

The European Council will be asked to apply a comprehensive approach to migration to the EU’s eastern and south-eastern neighbours. The European Council should also pay attention to the need to further reinforce the management of our external borders. The Rapid Border Intervention Teams should become active very soon.

Secondly, the European Council will return to the crucial issue of HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is a critically important public health issue for Europe. We can only tackle it together by ensuring political leadership from the top and the involvement of civil society at all levels. It requires devoting attention to prevention, research, surveillance, treatment, care and support inside the Union and in neighbouring countries. I would like to pay tribute to the German Presidency for keeping this issue on the agenda, despite the fact that this is not often recognised in media reports about the Council.

Thirdly, I would like to say a few words about climate change. It will not be at the core of the June Summit agenda but, in the wake of the G8 meeting, it would be impossible for the European Council to be silent on this issue. I want to assure this Parliament that the Commission is working very hard to meet the expectations of the European Parliament and the European Council and to maintain an ambitious and dynamic policy, both internationally and in the European Union.

Specific legislative proposals will be adopted by the Commission in the autumn and we intend to build on the European Union’s credibility and leadership in fighting climate change.

Those are some of the key policy issues that will be covered by the European Council. However, as we all know, the key issue will be to move forward to a Treaty settlement.

I need not repeat here the urgency of the matter or its significance for Europe’s future. We discussed it here yesterday and our discussion on the Brok and Barón Crespo report left no doubts about what is at stake. I believe that we can be cautiously optimistic about the results, even though I understand that we should perhaps not raise expectations even higher.

The German Presidency, as we have noted, has already made huge efforts over the last few months to build a new consensus among Member States. The Berlin Declaration reminded us of what we were trying to achieve together, how much we have in common and how Europe has made and will make a difference for the peoples of Europe.

Since then, the Presidency has been listening to the position of Parliament, the Commission and every Member State. All have shown their willingness to find a solution to move Europe forward.

For the Commission, the starting point for a new Treaty settlement is clear. In terms of serving Europe’s citizens, this discussion is not a theoretical institutional debate: the institutions are there to respond to citizens’ needs, to realise policy goals and to deliver results. They need the right way of working and the right standards of democracy, transparency and accountability. We cannot implement our agreed policies with one hand tied behind our back. We need the capacity to act in a changed environment in the Europe of a globalised world.

What does this mean for the European Council? It means that we need a fair and balanced solution, able to command a true consensus. A second failure might have dramatic consequences for European construction.

However, it also means maintaining a high level of ambition. A lowest common denominator solution might bring short-term harmony, but it could also store up problems for the future. Simply introducing minor changes in the Treaty of Nice will not be sufficient.

The Commission welcomes the efforts to find a solution, and the first place to look for solutions is the Constitutional Treaty. Regarding the substance, the major part of that work remains valid. The changes introduced by the Constitutional Treaty are still pertinent and they need to be translated into reality, not questioned.

The Community method must be protected, including the Commission’s right of initiative. A single-pillar structure and a single legal personality would tangibly enhance the Union’s capacity to speak with one voice and to act in a global world. Parliament’s enhanced role and the advances in qualified majority voting should be preserved.

As we see it, the Constitutional Treaty also brought a very good solution on how to involve national parliaments, one that strikes the right balance between the role of national parliaments and the role of the European Parliament. Similarly, we will defend the legally binding force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which forms an integral part of the package agreed by the Convention and the IGC.

We acknowledge that some changes must be made and we respect all those who have expressed their views in this regard. We will not run away from a serious discussion about the form of the text, the EU symbols or other areas that have been mentioned for discussion. As far as the form of the new text is concerned, we will do our utmost to ensure that any new text will be readable and accessible. Our position in the negotiations will be ambitious and firm.

Let me also add a point that is closely linked to our debate on the Treaty settlement. We do not just need a deal among the institutions and the Member States; we are equally in need of a new narrative, a new way to explain to citizens what is at stake. We need to explain why the enlarged Union needs a new Treaty that provides more democracy, more coherence and a Union strong enough to meet citizens’ expectations.

Europe’s citizens welcome the EU’s commitment to tackling today’s key policy challenges: climate change, migration, energy – the areas that Mr Steinmeier has already mentioned. This is what they expect, but we have not yet succeeded in persuading them to make the connection between effectiveness in these areas and an appropriate Treaty settlement. All too often people still feel that the debate on the Treaties and the Constitution is the preserve of a rather small Brussels clique. We need to show that it is a question of having the right tools to serve agreed political objectives. We need to continue to focus on debating the ways to achieve these objectives.

Parliament and the Commission have made a major contribution together through the Plan D strategy. If the reflection period is over, that does not mean that we should scale down our efforts to engage civil society and citizens in a debate about the future of Europe. It will be of crucial importance in the European Council, in an intergovernmental conference and in the ratification phase to show that a settlement is of real, direct benefit to citizens.

I was happy to hear that most Member States are clearly in agreement with the Presidency’s approach for a short intergovernmental conference with a clear and precise mandate to negotiate a rather limited list of issues. As for the Commission, we will be vigorously pursuing our role as the voice of the common European interest.

The road to a Treaty settlement has not always been easy, but we are hopefully back on track. If we can hold our nerve and stay focused on the needs of an effective and democratic Europe, the result will give us a European Union that can face the challenges of the 21st century with confidence.

(Applause)

  President. – Madam Vice-President of the Commission, you have given us a full presentation of the items on the agenda of the European Council and we thank you.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, an agreement on the institutions is needed on 22 June; an agreement that enables Europe to do as the Presidency and the Commission have said and take the decision to act in the areas in which the Union is required: climate, energy, immigration, security and foreign affairs.

In the face of globalisation, our countries, our fellow citizens, must be actors and not spectators. If action is what drives us, if we, as Europeans, are the heirs of a civilisation and the vehicle for values and ideals designed to influence this changing world, we must provide ourselves with the resources for this. We are awaiting a comprehensive agreement on 22 June on the general outlines of a new European treaty enabling the Union to be at once more effective, more democratic, more understandable and, above all, more transparent. Whether it is called a treaty, a simplified treaty or a basic treaty, it must be ratified before the next elections in 2009.

We want a treaty that lives up to the expectations of the countries that ratified the current treaty, of those who rejected it and of those who reserved judgment. As far as the members of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats are concerned, it can be neither a minimum treaty nor a treaty by default. We need an ambitious, realistic treaty, a treaty that is equal to what is at stake, one that respects the imperatives of subsidiarity and proportionality. This treaty must accord full importance to the parliamentary dimension of European integration. This treaty must endow the European Union with a legal personality, provide for the unification of the rules of the three pillars and settle the issue of a stable presidency of the Council and the issue of the EU’s foreign affairs minister. This treaty must extend the scope of majority voting so that the Union is not paralysed by the right of veto: reservations must not hinder those who, together, want to move forward.

This treaty must make the Charter of Fundamental Rights – the common basis of the rights and freedoms of the citizens – legally binding. It must also provide Europe with the legal instruments necessary to rise to the new challenges. It is on all of these fundamentals, on which the demands of our countries and of our fellow citizens converge, that the agreement of 22 June must focus. My group would like to pay tribute to Chancellor Merkel and to Minister Steinmeier for their efforts to make progress on this reform.

Ladies and gentlemen, democracy in a State subject to the rule of law hinges on parliamentary representation. If the Heads of State or Government decide to set up an intergovernmental conference, we expect the parliamentary dimension to be a very strong component of it. I am thinking of a European Parliament that will be represented by eminent and qualified figures, but I am also thinking of the national parliaments, which must make their voices clearly heard in this process.

Our Parliament will, during the course of this part-session, express a position that is both strong and detailed by adopting the Brok/Barón Crespo report on the interinstitutional development of Europe. Our President will communicate this position during the Council of 21 and 22 June. I have no doubt that a great deal of attention will be paid to this position and that it will be reflected in the conclusions of the forthcoming Summit and Intergovernmental Conference.

Europe has a duty to produce results. We are confident that, just as it has done previously for climate change and energy, on 22 June the German Presidency will enable the political will to prevail over scepticism, that it will be able to move Europe forward on a matter that is technical, admittedly, but crucial, so that we can decide on the real issues at stake and on the real values.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have nothing to add to the descriptions given by the President-in-Office of the Council and the Commission, for the cards are on the table and we have no need to repeat what we all know already, namely that what will be at stake on 21 and 22 June will be nothing more and nothing less than the future of the European Union as it at present exists, and when I say that, I am not excluding the possibility of that which will exist after 22 June being a different EU – a changed one, a weaker one, or a strengthened one perhaps.

What we want is a stronger EU, but, if the EU is to be made stronger, one fundamental presupposition is that we think back to one simple saying: in unity, strength. In fragmentation, weakness. That has been the experience of the European Union over recent years. It is always weak when it is disunited and at odds with itself. It is strong when it is united. Yet the European Union must be strong, for the challenges it faces are enormous, and to all those who dream of vetoes and believe that one would make them strong, one has to say that the filth borne in the air takes no heed of vetoes, nor does it pay any attention to borders. Europe is needed to help save humanity in every area of its activity, and it needs to help in ways only it can.

Europe still thinks of itself as a large continent, yet, set against the 1.3 billion Chinese and the 1.1 billion Indians – who together, at 2.4 billion, make up a third of the world’s population – the 27 Member States, with their 495 million inhabitants, make up a small one. Even the Federal Republic of Germany, which you, Mr Steinmeier, represent, would, despite its 82 million inhabitants and their enormous economic clout, be a weak country on its own without the European Union.

Europe needs this unity, and the components for it are to hand. We have the challenge of climate change to face. Even if it is from the United States of America that the call to unity comes – and even if we always have to ask what they actually want when they issue such a call – our relationship across the Atlantic demands of us that we do them a favour and unite, for they know that it is only by combining the enormous scientific, economic, cultural and social power that we, on both sides of the Atlantic, can accumulate, that we can make an effective contribution to resolving the world’s problems.

The cards are on the table; the much-praised Mrs Merkel has certainly done a good job and will have yet more hard work to put in. After all, she is a physicist, and physicists know that the most marvellous things can be put together from the most disparate elements; they also know that nothing can succeed unless they do the maths. According to the logic of mathematics, two minuses equal a plus, so there is still hope for the twins in Warsaw.

We know where the problems are, Mr President-in-Office. True to your diplomatic undertakings, you have told us that you cannot tell us everything that you know, and a good thing too, for if you did, the vast number of problems you have to deal with would make the mood in the House this morning a less than happy one.

Our task is a different one: we have to address an appeal to the governments who are meeting together on 21 and 22 June. Nice was an exercise in failure not only because this or that Head of Government nodded off in the course of the evening, but also because, the following morning, the curse of the evil deed became apparent when everyone said that the treaty would not be enough for 15 Member States and wondered how it could possibly be sufficient for 27; that was why we ended up with the Constitution. Now that itself has not been ratified, but we are 27 Member States in number, and we cannot die for Nice. If we cannot achieve better results than we did with Nice, we have to fall back on it, and then – Mr Saryusz-Wolski please note – Nice will be the death of the European Union. I do not want that, and so we have work out something that brings unity. We in this House have outlined what we think about the Barón Crespo/Brok report, and I have to say – speaking on behalf of my group – that Parliament will make that report its benchmark; offer less than what that report describes as being necessary, and there can be no agreement. My group, at any rate will not vote to accept any result that you offer us that falls short of what has been demanded, and I want to make that quite plain to the Council today. Be optimistic, Mr President-in-Office, and we will be right alongside you; keep fighting to the last minute. It is intolerable that we should end up with failure, with 26 Member States left empty-handed through the refusal of one to play ball. Unity is strength; division brings weakness.

(Applause)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, one thing we all know. Those of us here and those protesting at Heiligendamm. The key challenges facing our people; challenges like climate change, energy security and international crime remain unsolved because our institutions of government are no longer fit for purpose.

Member States recognised this when they signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution, and yet some now backtrack on those commitments without even attempting ratification.

Such an approach is contrary to the spirit of European Union, contrary to common sense, contrary to the interests of Europe’s citizens. As Javier Solana said last month, ‘just when we should be at our most alert, just when the world’s demand for Europe is at its highest, the Union has turned inwards, immersed in a state of institutional crisis’.

Acting together, Europe could make a real difference where individual Member States meet only a brick wall. The detention of the Bulgarian nurses is a case in point. As a result of January’s Council, diplomatic pressure from all European Capitals has been brought to bear that could soon bring the nurses’ captivity to an end. We call on the Presidency of this House to demand that the Summit unite in the same manner in support of Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist held in Gaza.

And yet on wider issues, matters of crucial importance? Well, as Mark Twain reminded us, when all is said and done much more has been said than done!

How can we protect our citizens from abuse of data? How can we ensure energy security? How can we manage migration policy if we fail to equip ourselves with the tools for the job? Are the naysayers serious in saying they will sacrifice good governance for the sake of flags and titles? Can they really defend a system of national vetoes which, as President-in-Office Steinmeier pointed out, castrates key initiatives? Codecision and qualified majority voting must be the norm, not the exception, in European policymaking.

June’s European Council is an opportunity to close a barren chapter of non-cooperation and start afresh with a toolkit equipped for the times. This House stands firm in its desire to secure a roadmap for reform that can enter into force by the next European elections. We demand robust Parliamentary participation in the IGC, at which we demand greater and more pluralistic representation.

As one of the co-authors of the Constitutional Treaty at the European Convention, this House expects to be treated as such, not consigned to the margins as we were for previous Treaties. If the text is to surmount the perceived lack of legitimacy of the original, then the people’s representatives must be given a voice. That voice will argue against a de minimis compromise on the substance of the text. It will insist that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is too important to be downgraded in the manner proposed by the UK, because that way lies differential membership, differential citizenship, differential rights which have no place in a Europe of equals.

(Applause)

The path of the lowest common denominator outcome leads inexorably to a two-tier Europe.

Let the faint hearts be warned: this is our best chance to make Europe work for our citizens. We must not and we will not let it go.

(Applause)

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Madam President, first of all I would like to congratulate Chancellor Merkel and Minister Steinmeier for their tremendous efforts so far in trying to find common ground and areas of agreement between what are very disparate ideas as regards the future of Europe. In saying that, he did not want to tell us everything that he knows or everything that he has experienced over the last number of months of these negotiations and discussions. It is also quite amazing and shocking that there is a failure to take movements on core principles and issues of the Berlin Declaration that was agreed by all Member States and approved by this Parliament. We already have agreements on that where we can act together.

We spoke eloquently yesterday in this Parliament about the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War and all the things that we could be doing and should be doing if only we had a Constitution. We do not need the Constitution to take immediate action to solve the humanitarian crisis for the people of Palestine. That can be done simply by agreement and by decision. We have already made some moves towards that. There are other areas in which we can move forward, so this idea that has been put forward that without this final agreement we will suddenly fall into a state of paralysis, is incorrect. Mechanisms will be found to overcome the problems and the difficulties.

In saying that, I believe we should have a new Constitution. I believe we should have a new Treaty that clearly sets out the roles and defines the powers of the European institutions. I believe that the rights of the citizen should be protected within that Constitution or within that Treaty. I believe that the ongoing goals and ideals of the European Union should be clearly expressed within that Constitution, that it should stand for democracy, freedom and the rights of peoples; that it should ensure that the rights of Member States are not undermined and to ensure that the voice of the peoples through their elected representatives is allowed an equal voice with other institutions within other organisations.

But I also believe that there is an onus on us when we speak about what the people want to see us doing. The people do not want to see us taking on new initiatives that we do not have the power to do at the present time. In fact I was quite shocked that the President-in-Office of the Ecofin Council made such a bombastic and ballistic attack on a single country when he was supposed to be acting in a neutral position. Mr Steinbrück wrongly made an attack on Ireland and wrongly made an attack with regard to the arrangements that were put in place and agreed by the Member States and the European Commission.

Finally, when we look to the future of the European Union, the future that we must deliver to our children and our grandchildren must be better than what our grandparents gave to us, and they gave it to us out of the ashes of the Second World War. Look at the beautiful child that they created. Let us make that child an adult fit for the 21st century.

  Monica Frassoni, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the events surrounding the G8 and its probable failure – which I myself will certainly not cry over – urge us to look to the European Council as at an important time for the European Union, in which consistency and ambition must go hand in hand, not least because the President of this Parliament has accepted that this process should be intergovernmental only. I am very concerned that we will soon witness a repeat of the nights of Nice and I regret that this Parliament has proved unable to fight harder for a more significant role in the current process.

The key issue for us is not to bow to the temptation to remain on the defensive and wait to see what the opposition says, then come to a nice little agreement with them. This attitude is mistaken and in the past has meant that we have had to adapt to compromises for which we are paying the price today.

I believe that it would be much wiser to go on the offensive and to join with the 18 countries that want a European Constitution. For example, you have spoken of the issue of climate change; however, I understand from various meetings and conversations that the proposed action is in fact little more than a cosmetic change. Why? When you were Commissioner for the Environment, Mrs Wallström, you put forward an intelligent and promising proposal for a protocol on sustainability. Let us consider it again seriously and ensure that, with this text, the debate on climate change translates into greater powers and more money for the European Union, instead of deceiving citizens on this issue with superficial idle talk.

We have many ideas on how to improve the constitutional text: the question of minimum social standards, the issue of taxes, eliminating the right of veto on foreign policy, and improving the review process by removing the veto. I believe that we must be offensive and not merely defensive in this debate.

Another aspect concerns our institution itself: I firmly believe, as does my group, that within the Intergovernmental Conference debate we must revive the issue of European lists. European lists are a way to become more European. This was a point we lost by just a few votes a couple of years ago. However, in preparation for the 2009 European elections, we must return to discussing how to build a real Europe and how citizens can truly vote for a powerful, influential Parliament. For this reason, Madam President, my group and I are by no means content with the idea of having three or four mere observers at the Intergovernmental Conference.

We must have much more than this. We must ensure that there is open dialogue with the Council on the basis of the agreements made in such a way that, as the elected representatives of the European people, we too can have the power to say what we think, because it is through us that citizens can also have their say.

(Applause)

  Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, the President-in-Office of the Council quoted the German Council Presidency’s slogan about Europe succeeding together, but I now find myself wondering: together with whom? The primary objective was to draw up a roadmap for the further progress of the constitutional process; since we debated the substance of this yesterday, and my group rejected it, I can save myself the bother of talking about it now, but if one compares what has been said over the last few months about strategy – with some wanting to leave the text as it is despite its having been rejected by two countries, some wanting a bit more and others a bit less, some wanting it more about the internal market and others more about social Europe – people are not singing from the same hymn sheet, and so far they have been missing the mark.

A lot has been said recently about solidarity in the ‘Europaforum’ broadcast on WDR, about solidarity as the principle on which the European Union is founded and on which basis it should continue to develop, and quite right too, but the only trouble is that the Council’s policy does not tally with that, for it has continued the trend sketched out by the Lisbon Strategy, with more and more areas of life being defined in economic terms and required to be restructured in line with an open market economy with free competition, and the application of criteria derived from management rather than from economics. Examples of this include the liberalisation of postal services, the Services Directive, the Health Directive and the Green Paper on labour law. Whilst politicians are tending more and more to deny themselves the chance to exercise influence over the course of events, your Presidency of the Council is pushing ahead with Europe-wide regulations that I regard as assaults on citizens and on their human rights, two examples of which are: the storage of air passengers’ personal data and the widespread introduction of the collection of biometric data for the purpose of the visa information system in the continuing absence of a single European system for data protection, and this is now being extended into the realm of foreign policy.

More has been done over recent months to implement the ‘Global Europe’ strategy for a competitive Europe, which is primarily concerned with market access for European businesses, rather than with fair trade, and there are more examples of that, such as the pressure for the tightening up of patent law, free trade agreements rather than cooperation agreements, economic partnerships instead of development aid, all at the same time as Mode 4 of GATS is being categorically nullified, thus affecting workers’ freedom of movement.

What I have to say about the G8 Summit is that it might well be legitimate for Heads of Government to get together privately for a barbeque and debate the future of the European Union and other weighty matters, but the goals being negotiated there by individual major EU Member States on the one hand and other economic forces on the other are being laid down in such a way that it would appear that they have to be put into effect on a worldwide scale, yet not even the 27 Member States of the European Union agree among themselves in this way. The decisions taken there are legitimised by nothing; hence, then, the audible and justified protest, to which attention must therefore be given, although I want to make it perfectly clear that we disassociate ourselves from all violence committed by whatever side.

  Jens-Peter Bonde, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (DA) Madam President, the Presidency and my two esteemed fellow Members, Mr Barón Crespo and Mr Brok, would have us ignore the French and Dutch voters. They voted incorrectly, so they must not vote again. The Presidency, the rapporteurs and the large majority of Parliament want the whole of the rejected Constitution brought into effect, only under a new name and without a referendum. Sarkozy’s mini-treaty does not mean fewer obligations. ‘Mini’ refers to the form of decision-making, with minimal influence for the voters and no more referendums. The German Chancellor has led the way. She requires all the countries to accept the content of a Constitution that even her own country has not ratified. In both Slovakia and Germany, constitutional litigation awaits.

The former President of the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, former German President and, in addition, Chairman of our Fundamental Rights Convention, Roman Herzog, has indicated that 84% of German laws now come from Brussels and that it is now already doubtful whether Germany can be called a parliamentary democracy. With 59 new areas in which the national parliaments have no right of veto, the EU countries will no longer be parliamentary democracies. It is, then, no longer questionable, but indisputable, that legislation devised by officials and lobbyists has supplanted the form of government we used to call parliamentary democracy. There is one comfort. There are still only 16 of 27 countries, representing 37% of the EU countries’ voters, that have ratified the Constitution within the unanimously adopted two-year deadline. On an entirely formal basis, the Constitution is therefore dead. Let us set up a new, directly elected Convention to prepare a text that can be adopted on the grounds that it will provide living national democracies with transparency, proximity to the people and greater democracy in those areas in which we decide to legislate in common. Let us also hold referendums throughout the EU and so give voters the last word.

  Ashley Mote, on behalf of the ITS Group. – Madam President, the British Government’s White Paper on the original Constitution said that it involved no fundamental change, but why have a Constitution if you do not want fundamental change? What other purpose could there be? Now we have Angela Merkel saying that the new version should have a new name, but ‘use different terminology without changing the legal substance’. How reassuring to be so vividly reminded of German commitment to democracy and the rule of law!

The old and, no doubt, the new Constitution totally reverses the relationship between the EU and the Member States and between the governed and the governing. Whenever before, I ask you, did a sovereign nation permit outsiders to write and impose a new Constitution on them, except after defeat in war? In my country, the State draws power from the people and it answers to them. The EU plans now that the State seeks to exist in its own right and have the people answer to it. Our rights and freedoms are our birthright. They are not in the gift or at the discretion of a passing parade of political nonentities, here today and gone tomorrow.

The original draft of the Constitution did us a great service. It crystallised the future. It attempted to turn a Europe of nations into a nation called Europe. It forced us to decide if we should allow Europeans to become our masters. We do not. You are our neighbours. You should be our friends, but nothing more.

Whatever its new name, like the last one, this one will not be a Constitution in any real meaning at all. The first was vague, grandiose, imprecise, complex, confusing and extremely long. But more important than any of that, it was proscriptive rather than enabling. It made law rather than seeking to create a framework for lawmaking. It offered no effective checks and balances to control future lawmakers, nor a mechanism to stop the train. It consolidated power for a system of government by a self-perpetuating bureaucracy and it turned the Member States from theoretical masters of the House of Brussels into its servants. What is different this time? This Constitution is not the answer. It is a 1950s solution to 2000s problems and today we live in a very different world. No wonder there is hostility across all 27 Member States.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR POETTERING
President

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the Union does not appear, in its day-to-day running, to have been plunged into crisis by the failure to adopt the EU Constitution. According to studies, the Union’s functioning has not been impeded following the 2004 enlargement. On the contrary, the legislative process has in fact gathered pace. Let us not talk about the speed of the process of adopting documents, however, but about the quality of those documents.

The new Treaty must guarantee a level playing field for all Member States, regardless of their size and how long they have been in the Union. It must not, under any circumstances, distort still further the weighting of decision-making and voting. The Union’s democratic legitimacy must be based on the principle of equal representation for citizens and for Member States. The decision-making and lawmaking processes must be transparent and the governments and parliaments of the Member States must be in a position to monitor those processes. The subsidiarity principle must be strengthened and attempts must not be made to ride roughshod over it, as often happens.

The document should not contain a Charter of Fundamental Rights. Instead, the Union should accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome in 1950.

  Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it cannot be stressed too emphatically that this summit will determine whether the European Union possesses the political capacity and the conjoined strength to adapt the fundamentals of the treaties, which now apply to 27 Member States, to the growing demands of a globalised world, or whether it will fail to meet this challenge and keep on energetically running on the spot. The Barón Crespo/Brok report testifies to efforts to get the timetable for the adoption of the Treaty itself adopted, and this House firmly endorses these. Those few Member States whose consent is at present still a cause of contention should therefore perhaps consider whether they are jeopardising the consolidation of the Community, and doing it for the sake of very obvious and selfish interests. Europe must not allow itself to sink into this sort of small-minded swamp.

All this having been said, it should still be borne in mind that the consent of all Heads of State or Government is required only primarily rather than exclusively, so let us remind ourselves that it was not they who brought the Constitutional Treaty down, but the members of the public who said no. Whether we will gain their approval by rescuing the Treaty from the dangerous corner of the referendum without examining the reasons for their rejection of it, I venture to doubt.

The way my own country is constituted leads me to object to referendums, but I am very definitely in favour of addressing the profound and continuing disquiet about the European Union and getting to grips with it in a pro-active way; for that too, the summit must send out a signal, and to do so is not to square the circle, for dissatisfaction makes itself felt in very definite ways, with reference, for example, to the lack of boundaries both within and without. There must be limits to Europe internally, in its dealings with the Member States; in the internal market, at any rate, we are coming up against the limits of integration, by which I mean the limits of what the public are prepared to accept by way of European rules and regulations, and the Commission is not least among those who transgress those boundaries to integration, occasionally deliberately and without any feel for subsidiarity.

We need the structure of a new Treaty. Those who bar the way to this revision of the Treaties out of self-interest and small-mindedness lay themselves open to the question as to whether they really belong in this Community, and we will not fight shy of asking them.

Let us not forget, though, that, while the Treaty requires the consent of the Heads of State or Government, Europe also needs a ‘yes’ from its citizens.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, not the least of the things that the Constitution is supposed to do is to establish a basis on which we are better able to organise a common foreign and security policy, but it is no more than a precondition for this and not something without which it cannot happen, nor can we wait until the Constitution is in place before taking certain steps.

Knowing as I do, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, your own very deep personal commitment, I would ask you, despite your other duties, to do something more for the Middle East over the coming weeks. Yesterday’s debate was under the heading of ‘40 years on’; 40 years on, we are still not yet giving sufficient support to those forces on both sides, among, that is, the Israelis as well as the Palestinians or Arabs, who are campaigning for peace.

Over the past few days, I have been reading a number of commentaries by Israelis such as Dan Diener, Tom Segev, Meir Shalev and Yaël Dayan, all of whom are forthright advocates of the ‘land for peace’ approach, to which the Palestinians have now committed themselves, as also – under the Saudi plan – have the Arabs. It follows, then, that the European Union must, by the policy it pursues, make unambiguously clear its support for all those forces – including the present Palestinian Government – that stand by these principles and really do want to take the battle to extremism and terrorism. We must do away with the artificial division that consists in talking to some and not to others.

There is a coalition government in Israel and a coalition government in Palestine, both of which need our support if the conditions for the peace process are to be created, and so, Mr President-in-Office, I ask you – not least because I know how much you are committed to this – to lend your support, in the last days of your Presidency of the Council, to all those forces that are willing and able to resist violence and make a peace process possible. Were it to do this, your presidency would not only be working for a Constitution, but also creating the conditions for a common foreign and security policy to be started in the Middle East.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Mr President, President-in-Office, what do you make of this latest craze for the simplified Treaty? Personally, it seems strange to me that those who support such simplification seek to delete what is the simplest article that we find in the 2004 package, which is the first article that sets out the principles for the Union’s foundation. The problem is that in trying to simplify we end up by being simplistic, and in seeking to define an amending Treaty – rather than a consolidating Treaty – we are in the realm purely of semantics. In changing terminology and in suppressing the symbols we risk turning Euro-scepticism into Euro-cynicism.

The fact is that there is no way out of this crisis, except with strong democratic leadership and a clear vision of the common interest of Europe, and such leadership is certainly being provided both from the Presidency and from the Commission at present.

  Konrad Szymański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, if the European Union summit is to trigger successful efforts towards treaty reform it is essential for it to demonstrate flexibility and a desire to compromise with the countries that have expressed reservations concerning certain provisions of the treaty.

Chancellor Merkel has demonstrated a great deal of good will so far. I therefore appeal to Germany not to fritter away that capital at the very end of the Presidency. It must not be deluded by those politicians that reject compromise and are now threatening to reject the treaty if it does not include the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the whole range of constitutional changes.

Constitutional fanaticism is not a good way out of this crisis. Sound progress towards treaty reform will be made if the forthcoming European Union summit adopts a broad flexible negotiating mandate on the division of competences, the principles of external representation, constitutional symbols and the voting system in Council. If this does not happen, more time will be wasted whilst we rejoice in our own inflexibility. I do not think that is what Europe expects of us.

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, one reason why this House has welcomed you with so much applause, Mr Steinmeier, is that you, during the European Union’s fiftieth birthday celebrations, like Mrs Merkel, set before us the positive objectives of this revived constitutional process, yet, nevertheless, people in this House keep on asking themselves how and when this diplomatic process centring on the mini-treaty or some other treaty, being currently closed, will be re-opened. Good objectives of the kind repeatedly held out by the Council Presidency can in fact endure the gaze of the public, so why, if we have such good things planned, do we keep on preventing them from being involved on a long-term basis, when it is long overdue that they should be? By the next summit at the latest it must be made plain just how this consistent exclusion of the public from the constitutional process is to be brought to an end.

I also want to say something about a specific policy area, namely climate policy, which is currently being discussed in Europe primarily in association with the G8 Summit, and the June summit on which can only, in my eyes, be considered a success if what is done internationally does not fall short of what was agreed on Europe’s behalf in March. The goal of a two-degree rise in temperature, the acknowledgement of the need to achieve a global 30% reduction in CO2, and that the UN is the body best suited to mutual consultation on the subject are, to my mind, fundamental preconditions. If George Bush, in Heiligendamm, prevents, among other things, that sort of accommodation, I think the European Heads of State who are going to be there would be wrong to expect anything of it; I see the results from the March summit as being worth a good deal more and believe that they should be enforced, for George Bush, the President of the United States, will shortly be yesterday’s man.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Five major concerns should be prioritised at this European Council, namely stopping the European Central Bank from raising interest rates, in order to prevent social injustice from becoming any worse; boosting public investment in order to create more jobs with rights and to reduce poverty and social exclusion; discussing measures aimed at stepping up participatory democracy and at broadening the pluralism debate on European issues; committing ourselves to the cause of a just peace for the Middle East, whereby the sovereign rights of the Palestinian and Iraqi people are protected; and strengthening cooperation and solidarity on the world stage in order to reduce social and regional inequality.

Instead, we see this fixation with pursuing the main proposals contained in the neoliberal draft Constitutional Treaty, which lapsed when it was rejected by French and Dutch voters. Now, the aim is demonstrably to avoid public debate, to sidestep referendums, to prevent the citizens from expressing their sovereign opinion and to bolster the concentration of power among the major European powers, in order to pander more to the interests of the economic and financial groups. As far as we are concerned, priority should be given to economic and social progress, and to the rights of the workers and the people. Any proposal for a new Treaty must, of course, be put to the voters in referendums to be held in each of the Member States on dates decided by the national authorities.

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I am surprised we have the front to call this a debate, because the Minister did not tell us any of the substance of the negotiations. But, of course, there is no debate, is there? There is no debate in the national parliaments, no informed opinion in the press, no debate at all – and why? Because this whole Treaty is being put together in secret and that is because you do not want to involve the citizens of Europe. You are fearful that the more they find out about your grandiose plans, the more likely they are to vote ‘no’.

Worse still is the downright dishonesty with which this whole process is being pursued. For Angela Merkel to talk in a letter about the proposal to use different terminology without changing the legal substance is the stuff of Alice Through The Looking Glass. It is the twisting of language. It is the deliberate attempt to stop there being free and fair referendums in European countries. It is your plan to act like a bulldozer: just to sweep aside the French and Dutch referendum results, to pursue your political goals without taking the people with you.

I have no doubt that you think you are going to get away with it, but from a British perspective I have no doubt that Mr Blair, in his last act as the British Prime Minister, will sign up to virtually anything you want him to. But he will be handing to his successor something rather like a hand grenade with the pin pulled out, because the pressure on Gordon Brown to have a referendum on this Treaty in Britain is going to be enormous. In fact, I would go further. I am confident that this Treaty will not become British law without the Brits having a referendum, and when they have that referendum they are going to say ‘no’.

But if you are proud of your European project, if you are true democrats, then you will join me in the call to let the people decide their own future. Do not foist it upon them.

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Mr President, a key focus of the German Presidency has been its determined attempt to revive the substance of the EU Constitutional Treaty, which was roundly rejected by the French and Dutch voters. We claim to be a Europe of values based on democracy and the rule of law, yet this attempt to resurrect the Constitution in defiance of the clear and expressed will of the voters demonstrates a vast contempt for democracy and for European citizens. And the methods proposed are deceitful and dishonourable.

You have heard this already but I shall say it again – we have Angela Merkel’s letter, in which she proposes different terminology without changing the legal substance, and replacing the Charter of Fundamental Rights by a short cross-reference having the same legal value. Mrs Merkel, this is downright dishonest! You should be ashamed. Our leaders will then fraudulently pretend that the new Treaty is wholly different and deny us a referendum.

I remind my country’s incoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, that he is bound by a clear Labour manifesto commitment to put the Constitution to the British people. He cannot pretend that a few cosmetic changes can escape that commitment.

  President. Although the President is unable, under the Rules of Procedure, to reprimand a Member who has just spoken, I would do so in your case, Mr Helmer, if that option were open to me, since you have just insulted a Head of Government, and I have to say that I think you have just behaved in an un-British fashion.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, you cannot choose those speakers that appear close to you on the board in these debates, but let me just keep to my text.

My text voices concern, as you might expect, that the Council meeting, which is a vital one, should not devote all its attention to the issue of the Constitution. I and my colleagues do not believe that a Constitution as such is necessary or that there is a massive crisis in Europe at this time that requires it. We hope that a solution will be found which does not require the Constitution to be pushed through regardless, following the views expressed by the people of France and the Netherlands. We hope that the Laeken Summit and what it stood for – which was to make the EU more transparent and less intrusive in the lives of our peoples – will be the basis of whatever comes out of that very important summit.

But I want to say how pleased I am that the Chancellor of Germany has taken such an interest in the issue of climate change and the need for us to work in a cooperative fashion to try to find solutions to global warming and, indeed, the global poverty which arises as a result of those changes. She shares with my party leader, David Cameron, a firm commitment to tackling one of the gravest challenges facing mankind today. It is in relation to that kind of hard policy that we all feel that there is a massive urgency and priority and that we can work together in the right way. We can act together in a way which actually enhances the EU in the minds of the people rather than making them suspicious of its intentions for their future.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, this House is prepared to agree to a revision of the Constitutional Treaty, but only – and I say this for the benefit of the President-in-Office of the Council – if the political content is right. The strenuous efforts to use semantics as a means of assuaging national sensibilities can be accepted for as long as the EU, as a whole, becomes more effective, and what that means is more decisions by qualified majority, including in foreign policy. President Sarkozy is pushing for a mini-Treaty; like a mini-skirt, a mini-Treaty would cover up the essentials.

What the people of Europe want is clear proportions, not diplomats in darkened rooms haggling over lawyers’ devious arguments about square roots. Whether or not the Treaty includes references to the European flag or the European anthem is not a matter of life or death. The flag with the ring of stars will continue to flutter in the wind, and the ode to European joy will not cease to resound. As for the foreign minister not being allowed to be called a foreign minister, that, though, is fraudulent labelling. If Mr Solana’s successor can only act after a unanimous decision by the foreign ministers, one might as well call him a postman.

What is the point of a permanent President of the European Council if a single Polish twin can put a stop to negotiations – with Russia, for example – that are needed. The people – even many of those in the ‘no’ camp – do not want less Europe, but rather a Europe that cares about their problems, and that means that there must be binding fundamental rights for every citizen, with, above all else, the fundamental social rights being secured and extended. The new Treaty must make provision for all proposals emanating from the Commission to be accompanied by a social impact assessment. Public services must also be put on a secure legal footing. Although I am backing the Presidency of the Council, I will not be party to a sell-out, and in that I will certainly not be alone.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, at the next summit the EU will be focusing on how to strengthen itself internally. The new, more compact Treaty will hopefully allow the EU to improve its capacity for making decisions and the EU will in future be able to concentrate on key, concrete issues. One of the most important of these will be fighting climate change and environmental matters.

The EU, Russia, Norway and Iceland agreed at the summit in Helsinki last November on a Northern Dimension policy. Environmental issues have in particular proven to be a success. An example of this is St Petersburg’s Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant.

These environmental matters cannot, however, be left at the stage they have reached and this is not the time to stop; on the contrary, now is the time to move on fast. It is specifically in the north that the consequences of climate change are visible most dramatically, for it is there that nature is very delicate, and we have to protect the living conditions of the aboriginal peoples there. For that reason I do hope that under Germany’s leadership the additional financing for the Environmental Partnership Fund is guaranteed, and in so doing a more important role will be given to climate change and environmental issues in Northern Dimension policy and in the control of climate change.

  Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, efforts have been made over the last two years within the European Union to find a sensible way out of the crisis situation that arose after the Constitutional Treaty was rejected by the people of France and the Netherlands. Several ways of simplifying the operation of the Union’s ossified structures have been suggested during the so-called period of reflection. It actually seems that all that time has been wasted, because the only proposals made amount to slimming down the old treaty whilst retaining the majority of its key provisions.

The intention is to present the slimmed down text to the countries who have already ratified the first treaty as if it were essentially an unchanged version of the original document. It will, however, be presented to the other countries as something completely new, a compromise document. Such action goes far beyond the usual manipulation of the nations of Europe. In addition, it is even planned to deny the nations the opportunity of making their views known through referenda. I believe we should strongly oppose all of this.

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI). – (PL) Mr President, it is expected that at the coming Brussels European Council the decision will be taken to begin work on a new Union treaty based on the European Constitution rejected two years ago. One could be forgiven for feeling that it has long since been decided not only that the nations of Europe need a common constitution but also what form the constitution should take. The national referenda in two European Union Member States demonstrated, however, that the draft constitution for the Union is highly controversial.

I trust that at the June summit in Brussels there will be no unanimity on convening an intergovernmental conference to adopt a new Union treaty. I also hope that the Polish Government’s representatives will block further moves towards a European super state. We would do better to work on guaranteeing the rights of nations in the contemporary world instead of working on a common constitution, whatever name is given to it, and strengthening the Union’s authority at the expense of national sovereignty.

  Bogdan Klich (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, we hope this summit will be successful, otherwise we, the leaders of Europe, will be labelled incompetent. We will have demonstrated that we are unable to bring the Union out of crisis and give it a new impetus, which is actually what most Europeans hope for. Despite what other Polish MEPs have said earlier, it is what Poles hope for as well. Seventy-three percent of my countrymen are satisfied with Poland’s membership of the European Union and support the process of European integration.

We therefore want a more integrated Union, a deepened Union, and we want a Union that is more Community-minded and less marked by national egotism. This means greater competence for the Union, enhancing the Community method and strengthening Community institutions. In short, what it means is more Union.

Secondly, we want a fairer Union. We want a Union where each citizen’s view carries equal weight regardless of whether that citizen comes from a large, small or medium-sized country. We also hope that the so-called square root system proposed by Poland will be adopted when it comes to laying down a new decision-making method for the Council.

Thirdly, we want a Union imbued with solidarity, one that remains true to its historical roots. After all, the principle of solidarity underpinned the whole process of European integration. Nowadays that solidarity is expressed by way of political solidarity whenever the interests of any one of the Member States are threatened, on the principle of all for one and one for all. Solidarity also means economic solidarity, which involves supporting the weaker regions in the framework of cohesion policy.

Finally, we want an effective and efficient Europe, one that can rise to the challenges of globalisation and the threats in the world around us, particularly those that transcend national borders. We want a Union that is able to combat terrorism and organised crime.

  Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, whilst all attention today is, of course, focused on the future of the constitutional process, I should like to address a different issue. We are equally impressed by the initiatives which the Presidency has taken, not least with regard to Central Asia. It is good, as I see it, for the European Union to shift its attention to that part of Asia, which is very close to Europe and the EU’s new neighbours. So far, it has been a blank area on our map, and I think it is important to support the Presidency’s initiatives in this area.

The developments in that region are of huge importance to the European Union, whether the issue is energy policy or the stability of the countries in question, including in connection with our own presence in Afghanistan. Where that region is going is not quite clear. We are dealing with different countries where different processes are underway. To gain our own impression of the situation there, we travelled with a small delegation of our group to Kazakhstan last week to size up the developments in that region. Upon arrival, you notice that the interest in the European Union over there is considerable and that relations, not least in the economic sphere, between a country such as Kazakhstan and the European Union develop at great speed. The European Union is now by far the most important trading partner of a country such as Kazakhstan. You notice that people over there are keen to work with the European Union, because those countries are wedged in between China and Russia and stand to benefit from a third powerful partner in order to be able to guarantee the balance and independence of the region.

What is also of interest is to establish that the focus is not just on energy and cooperation. There are options in that area, although we have to tread carefully given the fact that Russia recently landed a number of important deals thanks to fresh agreements with Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. In the longer term, however, there is still a great deal of scope, as I see it, for energy cooperation with a country such as Kazakhstan.

Finally, what is important in a balanced policy is also, of course, the human rights relationship. The European Union should draw a distinction between countries such as Kazakhstan, where a positive impact is possible, and countries such as Turkmenistan and particularly Uzbekistan, which have regimes which, as we see it, leave little scope for cooperation.

I should like to make one final remark. The Russian influence in that region is still very tangible. What I should like to stress at the end of my brief speech is that we must avoid a competitive battle of some sort between Russia and the European Union over Central Asia. We should strive for cooperation in that area too, including in the field of energy. We will need Russia, too, for the development of further energy relations with the Central Asian area. Once again, though, I should like to congratulate the Presidency on this new initiative.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, the German Presidency is right to listen to the different opinions that have been expressed in Europe on the Constitution. I do hope, however, that this does not mean it is the saboteurs rather than the pioneers who will determine the pace; that it does not mean our yielding to paralysis rather than opting for progress; that it does not mean our being guided by fear instead of by ambition.

I have heard some people say that the Constitution was too ambitious. How could it be too ambitious, though, if you consider the challenges we face in the 21st century? Even if we are ambitious, that does not mean that we are working towards achieving a superstate. I would like us to stop using this terminology once and for all. The term ‘superstate’ is utter nonsense.

People talk about a reduced Treaty. Why a reduced Treaty? For a reduced Europe? For a political dwarf? I hope that the German Presidency will try to keep the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty. The fundamental rights are not purely a legal matter; leaving the Charter out of the Treaty also sends a political message, even if the fundamental rights become legally enforceable. I hope that no new paralysing vetoes will be introduced for national parliaments.

Finally, a comment that is made frequently is that we listen to what the citizens have said, especially in the Netherlands and in France – the Netherlands being my own country. One of the things the Dutch citizens have said is that they have had enough of decisions being taken behind their backs, over their heads and behind closed doors. Is it not rather odd, therefore, that we should opt for an IGC behind closed doors? For confessional box procedures? For bilateral negotiations? I hope that the Presidency will dare take revolutionary action and will dare suggest that the next IGC will be held out in the open.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – A Uachtaráin, tá sé thar am anois ag an Aontas Eorpach teacht ar shocrú maidir le conradh nua don Aontas.

Is é Conradh Nice atá i bhfeidhm i láthair na huaire. Ní cheadaíonn an conradh sin ach 27 Ballstát a bheith san Aontas, rud a chreidimse atá éagórach.

Mar shampla, comhlíonann an Chróit na coinníollacha uile le bheith ina ball den Aontas Eorpach. Ní féidir léi teacht isteach, áfach, toisc nach gceadaíonn Conradh Nice níos mó 27 Ballstát.

Tacaím le conradh an Aontais Eorpaigh a bheith níos simplí, ach caithfear cothromaíocht a chothú idir Ballstáit mhóra agus Ballstáit bheaga sa bhealach ina ndéantar ionadaíocht orthu sna hinstitiúidí éagsúla.

Creidim go gcaithfidh conradh nua a bheith i bhfeidhm againn don Aontas Eorpach roimh an gcéad toghchán Eorpach eile sa bhliain 2009.

Tá guth an-láidir ag an Eoraip mar phobal ar stáitse an domhain mhóir. Caithimid a chinntiú anois go bhfuil muinín ag ár bpobal féin as an Aontas.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I should like first of all to pay tribute to the determination of Mrs Merkel, who has made it possible for the imperative and immediate need for a genuine relaunch of the EU institutions to be included in the Berlin Declaration. I should also like to stress the importance of the contribution made by Nicolas Sarkozy to this debate, because even before he took on the role of President of the French Republic, he was the first to suggest the idea of a simplified treaty, which seems to be the most appropriate scenario for breaking the deadlock that we are in.

Our Parliament must do everything it can to help the Member States to strengthen Europe’s capacity to take action with institutions that have the resources to meet the requirements of our fellow citizens in terms of effectiveness, democracy and consistency.

The idea of a simplified treaty must meet the requirement for a document that is more compact and more accessible than the Constitutional Treaty. This simplification must not, however, under any circumstances be perceived as a renunciation or a stopgap solution. We want a consensus to emerge in favour of an ambitious and realistic solution aimed at rallying together all the Member States: the eighteen that said ‘Yes’, the two that said ‘No’ and all those that have not yet expressed an opinion on the draft European Constitution. Our challenge is not to come up with an ideal treaty, but to reach a compromise among the 27 so that Europe moves forward, as one and pragmatically, with the aim of breaking out of the current deadlock as quickly as possible.

I hope that, during the European Council of 21 and 22 June, you will reach an agreement, Minister, with the Heads of State or Government establishing a precise mandate so that a swift intergovernmental conference, under the Portuguese Presidency, will draft a new treaty that will enable the Union to be strengthened and our fellow citizens to have more faith in the future of our continent.

I am confident and optimistic because everyone, today, is well aware of his or her responsibility to find a way out of the stalemate that has had a negative impact on European integration as a whole.

(Applause)

  Jo Leinen (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, what, in the case of the Summit, would be counted as a success for it, and what as failure? Yesterday, in Brussels, I heard a high-ranking politician say that even a mini-Treaty would be a maxi-success, yet that, of course, is what it cannot be. You are familiar with Parliament’s position, with our unwillingness to accept any reductions in citizens’ rights, in effectiveness, in transparency or in democracy and we do not see why we should accept anything less, for we know from Eurobarometer that the citizens of all 27 Member States want more Europe rather than less.

We were very encouraged to hear you say that there was agreement on the essentials. I believe that the Treaty has to become a ‘Treaty plus’. A certain amount has been added to it since 2004, such as, for example, the debate on protection against climate change, and it would be very fine if the protocol that Commissioner Wallström proposed back in the days of Nice, or some similar wording, were now to be incorporated into this Treaty. I also take the view that the public need a declaration on the social nature of Europe. There are great misunderstandings around about the Treaty, as if it were some neo-liberal con-trick; it could have a declaration added to it explaining its benefits and advantages both for the citizen and for Europe.

The institutional balance must be maintained. I ask you to take care to attach the same value to the national parliaments while not allowing the Community method to be demolished. The yellow card cannot be turned into a red one; to do so would wreck the Community method and give this House a far less significant role. Moreover, whilst capacity is not dependent on symbols, no convention would ever have had the idea of doing away with them. Even while talking about giving Europe a soul, we are taking away the few visible signs of identification with it, and that is why I believe we have to take up the cudgels for them too. After all, a minority must not be allowed to dictate what the majority may want. I appeal to the German Presidency of the Council to stand firm, for we are behind you and many Member States are alongside you.

(Applause)

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Europe is hoping that you will meet with success, with what will be a success for us all. Although we know how difficult your task is and how intransigently certain Member States are behaving, we very much hope that you will succeed in getting a mandate for the Intergovernmental Conference, and you have, in any case, our support.

We German liberals see three core issues as having priority. Firstly, we do not want the compromise on the institutional issues and the voting procedures to be negotiated all over again. We also see that as involving doing away with the pillar structure, and if you call for that, you knowingly take on board the fact that there will be no successor regulation to Nice before 2009, which, in terms of the single Europe project, is not merely irresponsible, but positively destructive.

Secondly, we need a European Foreign Minister and a European External Affairs Service appointed from among the Council, the Commission and the Member States, with the foreign minister not to be an ornament to the EU, but its mouthpiece; someone capable of taking decisions and backed up by the common political will of the capitals when things get tough. In exactly the same way as Mr Leinen, I found what you had to say at the beginning of our debate encouraging.

Thirdly, we would like to see strong protection for fundamental rights – something that is self-evident to Liberals. We know about the problems you are having with the retention of the Charter in the text, but, Mr President-in-Office, we urge you not to relent, for, as you yourself have said, the German Presidency will be judged by what it achieves in taking the Treaty forward, and I can predict that this House will see the debate on a two-speed Europe kick off with a bang if individual Member States refuse to give you a proper mandate, and there will be no stopping things then; the debate will then be one that we did not want, but that arises from objective necessity.

(Applause)

  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, the President-in-Office mentioned Baltasar Gracián in his speech and that reminded me that my compatriot used to say ‘if the good is brief’ then it is ‘twice as good’. I believe that one of our tasks in the European Council with regard to the Constitutional Treaty is, as Mrs Wallström has said, to produce an accessible, comprehensible and clear document.

It is possible to do so. That has been demonstrated by the Action Committee for European Democracy, chaired by Giuliano Amato: 448 articles have been reduced to 71 articles, 67 000 words to 16 800.

Brief therefore, but also good, as Gracián suggested. It is good because we are considering the content, and maintaining the essential content of the Constitutional Treaty.

It is therefore possible to do so, Mr President. Judging from the tone of the speeches today in this Parliament, I believe that an enormous majority in this House – and the vote on the Barón/Brok report will demonstrate this – wants to maintain the essential content of the Constitutional Treaty.

So please take the impetus provided by Parliament in that direction away with you today, Mr President-in-Office of the Council.

Our friend and colleague, Mr Schulz, has talked today about physicists and the importance of physics. Back in the days when I worked in a different field, Mr President, I remember performing Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s ‘The Physicists’, and I played Isaac Newton. In the final speech, Newton said that scientific progress cannot be stopped and that we must not be fearful of the progress made. I believe that we must not be fearful of the progress contained in the Constitutional Treaty either.

(Applause)

  Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has said that, over the next two weeks, he has to negotiate a narrow corridor in order to reach an agreement at the European Council.

I believe that it is actually a narrow street, because you are acting in public and, following the Convention, we cannot go back to deciding everything behind closed doors. This is a change that the European Council must take very much into account. Things must be done openly, under the scrutiny of the press and the Internet, and that is a message that I believe not just the Presidency of the Council, but also all of the governments, must bear very much in mind.

Secondly, with regard to our proposal, we have not been as concise as the working group chaired by our dear friend Mr Amato. Our proposal is that Parts I and II produced by the Convention should not be touched, and I very much appreciated what you said about respecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Finally, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, with a view to producing a simplified Treaty, I would propose adding ‘liberté, egalité et fraternité’ to Europe’s motto of ‘united in diversity’. Why? Because this is a union of sovereign and equal States, and also of citizens; because we are all equal and no State or player can impose their will on the others and fraternity demands that we resolve the problems of others, but not at the expense of bringing the problem to our country.

I believe that that proposal would also be accepted immediately by President Sarkozy, who has enthusiastically brought France back onto the European stage.

(Applause)

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I should like to congratulate the German Presidency on adopting such an ambitious programme and on its efforts to deal with matters that are of major importance for the Union.

This summit has to be a success, but the Constitution will not be the only important issue it will have to deal with. At the start of her Presidency, Mrs Merkel indicated that we had to build Europe together. By that standard, it has been a good Presidency.

Firstly, the principle of solidarity has regained its pre-eminence. It must also be incorporated into the common energy policy and the common emigration policy.

Secondly, the principle of the Union’s unity and cohesion vis à vis the outside world has been defended. We cannot be divided and we stand as one on the most important matters. That remains a crucial issue for the Union.

Thirdly, we have reached a turning point as regards the workings of the Union. Many bilateral discussions have taken place, and the fundamental debate on the Union’s future and institutional efficiency has been resumed. I am convinced that it often takes many months or even years for such major political initiatives to be recognised as a success.

It should be borne in mind too that the Union is in a great technological race to ensure victory for the Lisbon Strategy. Mrs Merkel also said that technology, talent and tolerance are needed for development. The Seventh Framework Programme got off to a good start with many programmes linked to innovation and the new technologies. Questions arise, however, as to how we can retain talent in Europe, and how we can become more competitive. So far the answer has not been forthcoming.

The German Presidency will certainly be associated with specific Lisbon Strategy successes such as the new roaming charges, the opening of the energy market and the opening of the market in services and labour. Credit is also due to the European Commission, however. It will be important for the Member States of the European Union to make strong efforts in this direction too at the forthcoming European Union summit.

  Bernard Poignant (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I welcome the arrival of plan B, B as in Brok and B as in Barón. That being said, we had a complicated treaty, we will have a simplified treaty, but it ought not to be too simplistic.

I shall take two examples: the symbols and the Charter. We read that the symbols are going to disappear: the anthem, the flag, the motto. This is not good news because the people of France are going to see that the outcome of their vote has resulted in the disappearance of the flag just when the President of the French Republic has put it on his official portrait. The symbol counts. It is a feeling of belonging. Try at the very least to keep the flag.

As for the Charter, I would very much like my fellow countrymen to have access to three texts: the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 26 August 1789, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 29 October 2004. This is a corpus, a whole.

We must promote belonging and not argue about matters of sovereignty or loss of sovereignty, and there must not be too much regression, though there will be some. As for the people of France, think of those who rejected the treaty and who are going to be disappointed, but think also of those who endorsed it and who could be frustrated.

(Applause)

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the motto that the German Presidency of the Council is ‘Europe – succeeding together’, and the new Treaty has been drafted in a transparent manner by the personal representatives of the Heads of State or Government, of all the national parliaments and by the EU institutions. Since this January, here in this House, the President of the Council said that there must, in Europe, be no tolerance for intolerance, our intention, at the Council, should be to say that there must be no tolerance for ignorance, be it for ignorance of one’s own signature, ignorance of what it means to be a community of peace, freedom, democracy and solidarity, or ignorance of the work of the members of the Convention and ignorance of the common political goals of the EU.

Those who seek to weaken the European Union rather than to make it more transparent, closer to its citizens, more democratic and better fitted to act are weakening every Member State and every European citizen. I see the ‘Europe – succeeding together’ slogan as a firm renunciation of à la carte Europe, of two-speed Europe, of the so-called third chamber. Let me tell you why: the European Union can succeed only if it carries on down the way of mutual consideration, of action in solidarity and does not become a community of cherry-pickers. Those who divide the whole weaken it.

The national parliaments will be strengthened by the subsidiarity proviso; participation in European law cannot do that for them. Let them at last, assume their European responsibility by monitoring the Council’s lawmaking activities rather than weakening the process whereby European law is made.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the European Union is just a step away from agreement on its future. It has to choose between remaining an organisation focused on its own problems, or preparing itself adequately to respond to global challenges. All Europeans, including Poland and its people, have an important contribution to make to this debate.

I believe that a political understanding on the European treaty should be reached at the June European Council. As far as possible, such a treaty should be based on the Constitutional Treaty signed by all Member States of the European Union in 2004. Despite being simplified, the new Treaty should retain all the major innovations of the Constitutional Treaty.

The intergovernmental conference ought to be convened immediately after the forthcoming summit, so that the final document can be ready by the end of this year. It could then be officially signed early next year and ratified prior to the European Parliament elections due in June 2009. For this to be possible the voting system enshrined in the Constitutional Treaty based on a double majority of countries and citizens must be retained. This is essential for the European Union’s activities to be accepted by society.

The Polish Government’s stance is aimed at amending the voting system and represents a return to the notion of wheeling and dealing within the Union. The effect would be precisely the opposite of what is intended. I would like to state my very serious concern about the equivocal position adopted by the Polish Government at the current negotiations. Poland’s stance is entirely incomprehensible to national public opinion and to its European partners. I therefore call on the Polish Government to support a compromise on the European treaty.

IN THE CHAIR:
MR ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of its term there is no doubt that the German Presidency bears a considerable responsibility, as we all entrust ourselves to its leadership to bring us finally to a positive solution to the issue of the European constitution.

Parliament is firmly committed to supporting Europe in becoming a key player in politics. We are well aware that we must reach a compromise; we understand that not all the work of the Convention and not all of the text of the Treaty approved by so many countries can enter into force.

There are some issues, however, on which Parliament cannot back down: I refer to questions such as majority voting, legal personality, foreign policy, and the flag and anthem.

There will be much to discuss and Parliament must play a key role. We therefore formally request, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that Parliament, through its President and its representatives, be allowed to actively participate in the Intergovernmental Conference, in short, to act as a genuine contributor together with governments and the Commission.

I feel I must say again that we must never forget our identity, we must never forget our Judaeo-Christian roots. Finally, I would like to tackle an issue that concerns the next Council: the problem of immigration. In Europe, and I say this as a representative from the southern border of the European Union – my country, Italy, has 7 000 kilometres of coastline – we are experiencing serious crises every day, in Malta, in Spain, in France. We call on the European Union to make a serious commitment, by developing the Frontex project and strengthening all initiatives that will enable us to curb illegal immigration into the European Union.

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I rise to speak further to Rules 9 and 146 of our Rules of Procedure, the latter of which governs the steps the President may take to enforce discipline, while Rule 9(2) governs the conduct and dignity of this House’s Members and their respectful behaviour in this Chamber.

Earlier on, our President, Mr Poettering, said in response to a speech by Mr Helmer that he was not in a position to do anything about it if Members offended against the dignity of this House. I take a different view. It is quite clear from Rule 9(2) that Members are required to maintain dignity and treat one another with respect, and that the President possesses the power to intervene and call them to order under Rule 146.

Why am I making this point? I do so because Mr Helmer, in his speech, called the President of the Council, Mrs Merkel, a liar, and I regard that as unacceptable.

(Applause)

Members of this House are supposed to respect not only one another but also the representatives of other institutions. If I were to describe Mr Helmer as a confused person – which I am not doing, but I ask you to imagine me doing so – then that would be derogatory to his dignity and an offence against mutual respect. That is why I do not do it. In exactly the same way, though, one can insist on a Member not being allowed to make such an outrageous statement in this House with impunity.

I therefore ask the Bureau to consider what disciplinary measures might be taken.

(Applause)

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS). – (FR) Mr President, there is a big difference between stupid epithets and untruthful epithets. Stupid epithets do not allege anything specific. In criminal law, this is therefore slander without object and, as such, stupid epithets must be done away with.

On the other hand, when our colleague, Mr Helmer, said that Mrs Merkel had lied, he attributed this to something very specific: a written directive in which she recommends keeping the substance of the Constitutional Treaty by amending the terms in such a way as to deceive the public. Our colleague, Mr Helmer, therefore simply made legitimate use of his right of criticism, albeit sharp criticism. I condemn the outright totalitarian approach – but it does not surprise me from our fellow Member, Mr Schulz – that results in all unsuitable opinions being clamped down on.

This is unacceptable in a Parliament that must remain a place for debates, even if those debates are very animated or critical towards the Presidency!

(Mixed reactions)

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, the point raised by Mr Schulz and mentioned by Mr Gollnisch is undoubtedly of very great interest in terms of the proper functioning of this House. Rule 9(2) is clear: Members’ conduct shall be characterised by mutual respect. The Rule does not provide any more details. It therefore falls to the Presidency to assess whether or not a comment is offensive. Mr Schulz, at the time when the incident you have mentioned took place, I personally was not in the chair, so please appreciate that I cannot get involved in judging the way the President of Parliament acted. In any event, you must all be aware that, according to our Rules of Procedure, no expression may be used in this House that is insulting, injurious or offensive to another Member.

(Protests and applause)

Mr Helmer, we have settled the point.

  Frank-Walter Steinmeier, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, having myself had a guest’s seat at this debate on a point of order, I must now presume on you to come back to the debate we were having beforehand, which had to do with the forthcoming Council. I would like to begin with a parallel that has frequently been drawn in this debate, that between the G8 Summit, which is currently going on in Heiligendamm, and the next European Council. There are, indeed, overlapping themes, and I shall address my remarks directly to Mr Markov, who has set himself up as the representative of all the critics who are currently demonstrating against the G8 summit or otherwise expressing their opposition to it. My personal view is that one either criticises G8 conferences for not being legitimated to take political decisions, or one criticises them for taking decisions that are insufficiently acute, clear and – where climate change is concerned – fall short of what is demanded. I have to tell Mr Markov that you cannot do both at once.

(Applause)

I am not making a party political point when I say that we should all get together and consider very carefully what the political consequences would be if our criticism of political summits were to be unremitting. It is precisely those who have not, so to speak, lost their senses, who know that we, in a world that has become more problematic, need to do politics in dialogue, that should feel least obliged to criticise summit meetings of this kind, and anyone who is critical of the summit in Heiligendamm on the grounds that lively debates are going on there about climate change and because they fear that sort of controversy really has no business taking part in them. Where different interests are at stake, though, simply waiting to see what will happen will not produce the desired result; I would take as an example of this our own European debate on climate change, which went on until March this year, and in which there was no manifest likelihood of our coming up with an agreed outcome by March. The simple fact is that argument is sometimes necessary, and certainly gets things moving in the right direction; I hope that is the result that will emerge from Heiligendamm.

If I may now turn to the forthcoming European Council and to the work that is going to be done there on the great European reform project, I would like, in the first instance to thank all those who have taken part in the debate for their confidence in the German Presidency of the Council, although I am of course aware that this trust goes hand in hand with high expectations that we will bring about a resolution of the issues still outstanding in connection with the European Council and with the Constitution in the course of the next few weeks. The only promise I can give you is that our ambition to do so is undiminished, and that we will not only invest time in dialogue but will also try to make what we hope will be creative proposals for solutions where such are still needed. There are those who have said, here and today, that there is no alternative to success at the European Summit, and I have to say that I agree with them all.

(Applause)

There are those who have been critical of what they call a lack of openness to the public, but perhaps we should leave that debate to one side for a moment, for you all know better than I do that nothing is as public as a debate on European lawmaking, and you know that we need a unanimous resolution of the European Council as well as a debate in Parliament. Since there are no indications that one will not be forthcoming, it is in your interest too that we should prepare as well as possible for this council to be a success, and that calls for talks in which we will have to test and amend wordings that we do not yet know will carry weight, rejecting or withdrawing most of them for not yet providing us with a sustainable way to a solution.

When we meet together at the European Council, every proposal will of course be public, and I am very well aware that our Presidency will come in for criticism every time a new wording is proposed. If the Council as a whole endorses the proposals, then it will come in for criticism – as will the Commission to the extent that it has a hand in things. Since openness and criticism will not be in short supply at the Council, we should not, by unnecessary criticism, make the period of necessary work preceding it more burdensome.

I do believe that the process over recent weeks has enabled us to reduce the number of outstanding issues to a considerable degree, and that is a good sign.

(The President called the Chamber to order.)

We now have a more limited and manageable space in which we have to seek a solution, and I hope that you will all help to win over your governments, who, as we all know, still take a rather sceptical view of this big project that we have planned for the end of the German Presidency of the Council. I thank you for this debate. Let us, during the European Council, work together to make it a success and without losing the confidence that all 27 European governments will be sufficiently aware of their shared responsibility.

(Applause)

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, it is unthinkable to ask people who are actually paid to talk together to shut up. That is how you make decisions here.

I have two final remarks. I should like to remind you of what Mr Watson did in his speech: he brought the spirit of Mark Twain into this Chamber. He quoted Mark Twain, and, for those of you who were not here, Mark Twain said that at the end of the day when all is said and done more has been said than done. We now need to move from words to deeds on an institutional settlement. We feel that we deserve a second chance but cannot afford a second failure.

I just have two things I would like to send with Mr Steinmeier. I look at the leaders of the political groups and at the Minister in doing so, because we have to realise that we have a joint responsibility to explain and make it clear to people how this method of intergovernmental negotiations will have to be combined with explaining and listening to citizens; how we have a responsibility to communicate about this process with full respect of the fact that this and all its details cannot be negotiated in public. We have a joint responsibility to do as much as possible to involve citizens and civil society and make it an open, transparent and democratic process to the highest level possible. We must work together on this.

Secondly, it is time for me to repeat that the Commission’s position on an issue that several of you raised and which concerns the European Parliament’s involvement on this issue is that we see that the European Parliament should be closely associated with the intergovernmental conference, at least matching the involvement that it enjoyed at the last intergovernmental conference. That is our position.

Finally, we also have to work together to work out the political narrative in communicating with citizens, and that has to do with embracing the issues that concern most citizens. They are worried about migration, climate change and energy, and we have to send the message that we want to equip the European Union and its institutions in the best possible way to meet these new political challenges.

(Applause)

  President. The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. – This debate is in many ways a continuation of yesterday’s debate on the Brok/Barón Crespo report on Parliament’s position concerning the future of the Constitutional treaty and the new IGC proposed by the German Presidency. I would therefore simply refer members to what I said yesterday on behalf of the Socialist group and wish every success to the 27 heads of government at their meeting later this month, which must agree on a way forward capable of securing 27 ratifications.

4. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

5. Voting time

  President. The next item is the vote.

(For results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)

5.1. Protocol to the EC-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement following the accession of the Bulgaria and Romania (vote)

- Report: Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0192/2007)

5.2. Conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (vote)

- Report: Capoulas Santos (A6-0162/2007)

5.3. Application of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System (vote)

- Report: Coelho (A6-0204/2007)

- Before the vote:

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (PT) Just three brief remarks if I may: a thank-you, a warning and a point of information. I should like to thank all those MEPs from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and all the political groups, whose goodwill enabled this report to be adopted quickly. I should like, too, to thank the Portuguese Government – and in particular Secretary of State José Magalhães – for taking the initiative and putting forward this system whereby new Member States that fulfil the Schengen assessment criteria do not have to remain unjustly suspended and can join the system immediately.

Secondly, speaking on behalf of Parliament as its rapporteur, I would like to sound a warning to the Council and the Commission. In our opinion, this transitional measure must never be allowed to hinder the rapid conclusion of SIS II, which must not be delayed and must remain a priority in view of the value-added and important innovation it encompasses for our collective security.

Third and lastly, a point of information. I should like to draw the attention of the Council and the Commission to the need to exert pressure on the Member States. Each Member State is responsible for getting ready to enter the system and to remove internal borders. Entering the Schengen system means that we have mutual trust when it comes to monitoring our external borders. During this Schengen assessment process there is no place for political agreements between governments to water down criteria and requirements. This is not an exercise in sympathy. This is about our shared security, and the security of Europe’s citizens is not something to be dealt with lightly.

5.4. Mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund: floods in Hungary and Greece (vote)

- Report: Böge (A6-0175/2007)

5.5. Draft Amending budget No 2/2007 (vote)

- Report: Elles (A6-0189/2007)

5.6. Draft Amending budget No 3/2007 (vote)

- Report: Elles (A6-0196/2007)

5.7. Addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (vote)

- Report: Scheele (A6-0403/2006)

5.8. Nutrition and health claims made on foods (vote)

- Report: Poli Bortone (A6-0404/2007)

5.9. Visa Information System (VIS) (vote)

- Report: Ludford (A6-0194/2007)

5.10. Prüm Treaty: cross-border cooperation in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (vote)

- Report: Correia (A6-0207/2007)

5.11. Consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) (vote)

- Report: Ludford (A6-0195/2007)

- Before the vote:

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I just want to point out that the Irish Members of the PPE-DE Group will not be participating, as Ireland unfortunately is not part of Schengen. It is the position we take in the Council, so we will take it here as well.

5.12. Protection of personal data (vote)

- Report: Roure (A6-0205/2007)

5.13. Baltic Sea cod (vote)

- Report: Chmielewski (A6-0163/2007)

5.14. Specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector (vote)

- Report: Salinas García (A6-0183/2007)

- Before the vote on Article 7, paragraph 3:

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I move that the text be amended by the deletion of ‘a report by 31 December 2013’ and the insertion of ‘a report by 31 December 2010 and every three years thereafter’.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

5.15. Regional Strategy Papers and Regional Indicative Programmes for Mercosur and Latin America (vote)

- Motion for a resolution: B6-0236/2007

5.16. Roadmap for the European Union's constitutional process (vote)

- Report: Barón Crespo/Brok (A6-0197/2007)

- Before the vote:

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I would like to make a point of order based on Rules 166 and 167 on the admissibility of part of a resolution. Parliament’s Legal Service has said that we cannot use a non-ratified Treaty as a reference in our reports. This applies to the first indent of the Barón Crespo/Brok report.

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

I would like you to delete the reference, if the House should be so unwise as not to adopt our alternative resolution, which could solve the problem of inadmissibility much more easily.

May I also ask you to change all other reports referring to the proposed Constitution or the Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to Eurolex, 117 adopted legislative acts now include such references to the Charter. There are seven references to the Constitution. This information comes from Commission President Barroso, in an answer to a written question.

Mr President, I am sure that you and Mr Pöttering, in particular, as a skilled and very well educated lawyer, are the right people to establish law and order in our House. The Constitution has only been ratified by 16, not 18, of the 27 Member States, representing 37% of the citizens. This is still far from the unanimity required to make it a legal-base reference point. Your Legal Service is entirely right.

(Applause from certain quarters)

  President. Mr Bonde, the interpretation of the Presidency, which, as you know, is responsible for interpreting the Rules of Procedure (with the greatest of respect for the Legal Service, of course, but it is not the Legal Service that interprets the Rules of Procedure, but rather the Presidency) ... As I was saying, the reference to a document that exists, regardless of whether or not it has been ratified by all of the Member States, and which has been signed by all of the Heads of State or Government, regardless of whether or not it has been ratified by all of the Member States, can be quoted as a reference in the motion for a resolution. The Presidency’s interpretation, therefore, is that your objection is unfounded.

(Protests and applause)

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

- Before the vote on paragraph 21:

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, on behalf of the PSE Group, we suggest replacing the word ‘possible’ with ‘reasonable’ so that it would read: ‘Emphasises that everything “reasonable” must be done to avoid the creation of a two-speed Europe’. I am sure you will accept the logic of this, that if we wanted to do everything possible, that might include shooting all opponents of this point of view. That is possible, but not reasonable, and as we are very reasonable people, we think we should say ‘reasonable’.

(Laughter)

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

5.17. United Nations Human Rights Council (vote)

- Motion for a resolution: B6-0234/2007

5.18. The social status of artists (vote)

- Report: Gibault (A6-0199/2007)

- Before the vote:

  Claire Gibault (ALDE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to say that I have had great pleasure in drafting this report and that I am grateful to all my colleagues and all the shadow rapporteurs. This report was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Culture and Education on 7 May.

I am tabling two new amendments today that I devised with eminent colleagues who have been ministers of culture. I would emphasise the fact that the measures that they contain will be submitted to the Member States in their definitive version only when we have the results of a study that I request in my report and that will be entrusted to the Commission. In the light of the elements that will subsequently be communicated to us, we will have an opportunity to analyse together the advantages and disadvantages of these measures and to take the most appropriate decision.

I should like to say that I was very shocked when, yesterday, a lobbyist, whom I find pretentious, woke up – even though he had had my report for two months – and took the liberty of calling my colleagues to ask them to vote against these two amendments. I find this attitude unacceptable and I hope that all those who have supported me on the occasion of this report will not let themselves be influenced. As I see it, our honour as MEPs is at stake, and I hope that you will put your trust in the artist that I am and that you will support the two amendments that give hope to European artists.

(Applause)

  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, as someone who was not phoned by the lobbyist but is delighted to vote against these amendments, I was just wondering what the point was of having a Legal Service at all. The two amendments that my colleague is suggesting are well beyond the bounds of what this House can do: they are, indeed, ultra vires.

I am sure that under the Corbett reforms that we voted on in our previous term there was meant to be some sort of impact assessment and common sense applied to amendments that we are trying to pass through this House, which obviously has not happened in this case. For example, I believe there is a call for a European social security card in this report, which really should not be allowed through this House at this stage.

5.19. Draft estimates of the European Parliament for 2008 (vote)

- Report: Itälä (A6-0202/2007)

  President. That concludes the vote.

6. Explanations of vote

- Report: Capoulas Santos (A6-0162/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The purpose of this Commission proposal is to incorporate into the Community acquis conservation and enforcement measures adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO), to which the Community is a signatory. In keeping with the simplification of other legislation, the Commission has taken the opportunity to update and bring together in a single legislative document all of the rules spread across several regulations. The rapporteur has updated these rules with other texts adopted following the Commission’s proposal, as part of the regulation on total allowable catches and quotas for 2007.

The simplification proposal is, in itself, a good thing. We feel, though, that the consequences of some of the measures incorporated for the long distance fleet, for the fisheries sector and by extension for national economies should be pre-empted and managed.

I wish to point out that Portugal was one of the founding Members of NAFO, represented by the Community when it joined in 1986. This has not brought us any great benefits – quite the opposite in fact, as evidenced by the difficulties facing the Portuguese long-distance fleet.

Report: Coelho (A6-0204/2007)

  Bairbre de Brún and Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. We have problems with the SIS and particularly the planned SIS II, which will create enormous databases with too few guarantees to protect the privacy of citizens.

However, this report does not change the nature of the current system, just extends it to new Member States. Without access to SIS, the citizens of these countries will not be allowed to travel freely in the rest of the EU.

For these reasons we voted in favour of the report.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE), in writing. (SK) The legislative resolution of the European Parliament on which we have voted today, which Parliament has already adopted and which I also backed, is a major milestone in the enlargement of the Schengen area.

This resolution will contribute to the speedy implementation of the acquis communautaire as it applies to the SIS in Slovakia and the other Visegrad Four countries, as well as in the Baltic States and Slovenia.

Some time ago all of the Members elected from Slovakia urged the Council to refrain from postponing the Schengen area enlargement date until 17 December 2008, which we found unacceptable. It appears that this intervention was a factor in the reassessment and acceleration of a process which will now, I believe, make the Schengen area a reality for Slovak citizens before the end of 2007.

I welcome the fact that the implementation of technical assistance, as well as the SIS, SIS II and SISone4ALL, will proceed on time; and that the European Parliament has gone to great lengths to ensure agreement during the first reading, thus avoiding risk of Parliament causing any delays in the implementation of SIS II.

The citizens of the new Member States are looking forward to the enlargement of the Schengen area, an act generally perceived as the genuine, definitive and complete accomplishment of EU integration.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. (SK) The free movement of persons in the Schengen area is a visible and practical exercise of the basic rights guaranteed under the European Community Treaty. To our citizens, the free movement of persons, unimpeded by passport checks, is a concrete example of the benefits associated with EU membership.

Thanks to the Portuguese proposal, the European frontier of the Schengen area will, from 1 January 2008, move east from the Czech-German border to the Slovak-Ukrainian one.

The interior ministers of the Member States agreed on this enlargement date after many months of negotiations and innumerable discussions. In 2004 the European Commission announced that, due to technical delays, it had to propose a new timetable envisaging an operational SIS II as of 17 December 2008. The risk was that the original enlargement date might be put off until 2009.

I have voted in favour of the report by the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, on the proposal for a Council decision on the application of the Schengen acquis in respect of the Schengen Information System of the newly acceded Member States. I believe that the new Member States will meet all the essential requirements for securing the external Schengen border as recommended by the EP rapporteur.

Even though it has not proved possible to launch the new SIS II according to plan, the provisional integration of the new Member States into the current system, SISone4ALL, will provide adequate time to accomplish the SIS II.

I am convinced that meeting the Schengen area enlargement deadline will contribute to the greater confidence of citizens in the European project as a whole.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL) , in writing. (SV) I have chosen to abstain in the final vote on Mr Coelho’s report today. The fundamental criticism of the Schengen system continues to be highly valid when it comes, for example, to personal privacy and the ability of refugees to claim asylum. The continued construction of ‘Fortress Europe’ must cease as soon as possible. I do, on the other hand, of course recognise the right of individual Member States to join the system if the countries in question are anxious so to do.

Report: Böge (A6-0175/2007)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my esteemed colleague, Mr Böge of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund, with a sum of around EUR 24 million being granted to our Hungarian and Greek friends, following the floods suffered by these Member States and their populations in March and April 2006. Even though we must deplore the delays, many of which were due to the Member States themselves, we should be pleased about the usefulness of this fund, which is endowed with a maximum annual sum of EUR 1 billion.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Given the deadlock in the Council on reviewing the Solidarity Fund, the mobilisation of the Fund to help the victims of natural disasters in Greece and Hungary in 2006 is an opportunity to reiterate the need to ensure that regional disasters remain eligible for the Fund, and to adapt it so that it corresponds most effectively to what the victims of this type of disaster need.

It is also an opportunity to reaffirm our opposition to the ideas of extending the scope of the Fund without raising its financial ceiling and of lowering the threshold to mobilise the Fund, in such a way that the EU Member States with the highest GDP stand to gain the most from it.

We should also like to highlight our proposals, adopted by Parliament, aimed at acknowledging the specific nature of disasters in the Mediterranean region – and adapting the Solidarity Fund to timeframes and eligible actions, and to the specific nature of natural disasters such as drought and fire – and at looking into the possibility of setting up a farming disaster fund.

Report: Elles (A6-0189/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The purpose of Draft amending budget No 2/2007 is to mobilise the Solidarity Fund, with a view to granting financial assistance to Hungary and Greece to help repair the damage caused by the floods of March and April 2006 in those countries.

Apart from the delay in activating this EU financial assistance, the cause of which must be investigated, one of the most striking points is the paltry amount in relation to the estimated losses directly sustained. The overall amount of Community financial aid for these disasters is some EUR 24.4 million to a loss totalling almost EUR 900 – EUR 520 million in the case of Hungary and EUR 372 in the case of Greece.

This is another example, in other words, of the discrepancy between the volume of losses and the amount offered by the Community. This calls into question the idea of effective solidarity with the people living in the affected regions. The current Solidarity Fund therefore needs to be reassessed in order to adapt eligibility criteria so that the Fund corresponds better to the needs of disaster victims.

Report: Scheele (A6-0403/2006)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) Yes, Mr President, I have voted in favour of the European Parliament Regulation on the addition of vitamins and minerals and certain other substances to foods, which lays down the procedures for exercising the executive powers transferred to the Commission, and I support the Council decision of 17 July 2006 in the matter of commitology, which can be summarised as 'regulatory procedure with scrutiny'.

The European Parliament has adopted a text enabling the transfer to the Commission of the power to take quasi-legislative measures where necessary, the measures in question being those provided for in Article 2 of Decision No. 468/1999, as amended by Decision No. 512/2006, which lays down the procedures for exercising the executive powers that have been transferred to the Commission. In this case the decision is a step in the right direction. In general, however, it still applies that the European Parliament should leave to its Members the power to decide democratically on legislative procedures.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Scheele report because I feel that the excessive ingestion of vitamins and minerals can be harmful to health and because it is crucial that information is easily understood by all consumers.

The difficulties raised by various national laws are now reduced by this proposal via harmonisation of the Member States’ legal, regulatory and administrative provisions on the addition of vitamins, minerals and other substances.

Report: Poli Bortone (A6-0404/2006)

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Bortone report on the proposal for a regulation on nutrition and health claims made on food. It is based on greater information and protection for the consumer, and seeks to ban misleading nutrition and health claims, thus minimising their harmful effects and delivering greater consumer protection.

Food is the very foundation of health. The concept of health is not solely confined to the absence of disease; it also encompasses the person’s physical and emotional well-being. It is therefore essential, in my view, that health claims be scientifically proven following assessment by the European Food Safety Authority.

Report: Ludford (A6-0194/2007)

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Following the vote in favour of the Prüm Treaty, the follow-up version of the Schengen Treaty, the SIS II information system and the decision on the uncontrolled and unimpeded collection and exchange of personal data, including on political, ideological, philosophical and religious beliefs, the European Parliament has now approved the Visa Information System (VIS).

This system, which legalises the collection, processing and exchange of personal and biometric data on any foreigner applying for a visa for any country of the EU, to which the prosecuting authorities and secret services of each Member State have access, adds yet another link to the chain which the EU is using to throttle individual rights.

The EU aims for the VIS to be the biggest biometric database in the world. These measures increase repression and the mechanisms used to impose it to gigantic proportions and institutionalise the potential to keep records on every inhabitant of the planet. The ΕU is gradually turning into a barrack/fortress for its peoples and the citizens of third countries.

However, as capital extends measures to repress and throttle the rights of the workers in order to consolidate and safeguard its sovereignty, so too will the waves of resistance and disobedience and the inevitable fight to overturn the power of the monopolies and their reactionary Union.

Report: Correia (A6-0207/2007)

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) When it comes to the opportunities under this proposal for foreign authorities to get access to data in Swedish registers, we would make it a precondition that such access be preceded by a request to the Swedish authorities and subsequent approval. In the light of this, we are opposed to what is known as a ‘hit-no hit’ system.

  Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE), in writing. Whilst Conservatives support co-operation between police forces, we cannot support bringing the provisions in the Prüm Treaty into the EU framework. We have grave concerns, as does the European Data Protection Supervisor, with regard to the requirements on the collection of data on individual citizens who are neither suspected nor who have committed a crime. In addition, the issue of "hot pursuit" without authorisation by other Member States police forces is a source of great concern. Conservatives believe that intergovernmental co-operation in the field of counter-terrorism and serious criminal cases is essential but feel that there should be an "opt-in" clause to allow Member States the freedom to maintain their traditional systems of justice.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour, because the report is aimed at the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States, which will lead to closer cross-border cooperation between police forces through exchanges of information and research on criminal offences.

One of the EU’s objectives consists of giving the citizens greater levels of protection, freedom, security and justice. Effective international cooperation by means of exchanging data, while guaranteeing the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, will help meet this objective.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The Prüm Treaty was signed, outside the EU’s legal framework, on 27 May 2005, by seven Member States, with the aim, as they put it, of ‘cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime’. Since then, nine more Member States, including Portugal, have stated their intention to ratify it.

This Treaty forms part of the securitarianism that has been brought in under the cloak of the so-called ‘fight against terrorism’, entailing serious risks to the citizens’ rights, freedoms and guarantees.

What is at stake is the establishment of a framework for police cooperation – joint operations, mutual assistance and even the possibility of the police force of one Member State taking action on the territory of another. The latter appears to have caused controversy in the Council. The exchange of a wealth of information contained in personal data has proved similarly controversial. It is particularly significant that the majority in Parliament rejected our group’s proposal, whereby ‘it will be forbidden to process personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, membership of a political party or a union or relating to health or sex life.’

Hence our vote against.

  Carl Lang (ITS), in writing. – (FR) On the subject of the fight against terrorism, it is most unusual that it should still be so difficult, today, for the national police forces and the anti-terrorism authorities of the various EU Member States to cooperate together and to exchange information.

However, what we now know for certain is that the attacks of 11 September and those of 11 March in Madrid were planned, at least in part, on EU soil. These attacks demonstrated the ineffectiveness of Europe's instruments and policies for combating terrorism. Terrorism knows no bounds; the fight against terrorism must know no bounds either, and intergovernmental cooperation in this area must be stepped up as a matter of urgency.

The same goes for the controls at the Member States’ borders: they must be reintroduced as quickly as possible, because they are the bare minimum when it comes to combating terrorism effectively and efficiently.

As a final point, I should like to emphasise a reality: that of the Islamic nature of terrorism in its new guise. A new political and religious ideology is gaining ground in Europe and in the Muslim world. It represents a fearsome breeding ground for terrorism.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. I voted against amendment 43 relating to so-called ‘measures in the event of imminent danger’ in the abovementioned report as I believe that measures put forward do not represent an effective means of combating cross-border crime.

  Αthanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The European Parliament today gave the go-ahead for the integration of the most basic provisions of the Prüm Treaty, known as Schengen III, into the so-called acquis communautaire and into the national legislation of the Member States under a simplified procedure, in other words without the signing and ratification procedures required under international treaties. These provisions oblige the Member States to create DNA files and permit the collection, processing and automated exchange of DNA data, fingerprints and other records and information by the repressive mechanisms, including on persons who they suspect will commit a criminal offence or jeopardise public order and security. It expressly provides that the purpose of exchanging such information is to safeguard public order at international demonstrations, especially in the run-up to EU summits. That is why it grants the right for joint operations and full powers, including the use of firearms, to foreign police forces. The Greek Communist Party has condemned the further criminalisation of civil and trade union action, preventive personal records and the stepping-up of the preventive repression of grassroots movements promoted by the provisions of the Treaty. The peoples must condemn this Treaty, which is dangerous to individual rights and democratic freedoms and step up their fight against the stepping-up of autocratic measures and the anti-democratic and anti-grassroots policy of the EU in general.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The German Presidency is seeking to transfer some parts of the Prüm Treaty to the third pillar. The objectives of this text, which is aimed at combating terrorist threats and protecting the public, are of the highest importance. Consequently, I must highlight the fact that the course of action chosen by the Council – namely demanding an emergency opinion from Parliament – has hampered the normal functioning of interinstitutional relations.

Parliament has always held a clear, responsible position on terrorism and cross-border crime. It has supported the creation of conditions for cross-border cooperation and the exchange of information between bodies responsible for prevention and investigation into criminal offences. This is the only way that we can hope to prevent terrorist threats effectively.

The establishment of procedures enabling the exchange of information to be prompt and effective is clearly of the highest importance. I therefore support the report.

Report: Roure (A6-0205/2007)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) It is both urgent and vitally important that this framework decision on data protection be adopted. A new global legal framework on data protection under the third pillar comparable to the rules in force in Community law is a vital factor in guaranteeing the same level of protection.

I therefore welcome the fact that a political agreement has finally been reached, and I wish to pay tribute to the rapporteur Mrs Roure for her outstanding contribution to achieving this outcome.

Improving data protection under the third pillar presupposes that this framework decision should apply to the entire pillar, including Europol, Eurojust and the Customs Information System, which already come under the third pillar. As such, I welcome this extension and the amendments tabled by the rapporteur, in particular the insertion of an assessment and revision clause so that the Commission can submit proposals for improving the framework decision after three years.

I also endorse the 15 general principles presented by Mr Frattini, which reflect the thrust of the acquis in the area of personal data protection processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Greek Communist Party voted against the report because, despite the individual improvements that it proposes to the new version of the Council’s framework-decision, it fundamentally adopts in its entirety its basic philosophy, which is the unrestricted and – in practice – uncontrollable facility for the repressive mechanisms of the EU and the prosecuting authorities both in its Member States and in third countries (such as the USA) and even private individuals to collect, process and exchange between each other all the personal data of every citizen of the EU, including data relating to their political and trade union action and ideological, philosophical and religious beliefs.

The sights of the repressive mechanisms are now set on every citizen of the EU, given that the collection and transmission of everyone’s personal data is permitted, even if they are hardly even suspected of any act, purely and simply for reasons of public order and security.

The addition of 15 guidelines for the protection of personal data is nothing more than a wish-list and exposé of ideas, without any possibility of imposing compliance with them in practice by the repressive mechanisms. In reality, there is absolutely no protection, in that the exceptions from this protection are becoming the rule, with the simple and uncontrolled citing of reasons of public security, while data protection is the exception, which it is almost impossible for anyone to impose.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) In the era of terrorist threats, the balance between privacy and protecting the citizens is becoming a constant challenge that we can only overcome with clear, responsible measures.

The rules on data protection used for judicial and police cooperation must be drawn up in such a way as to strengthen the principle of mutual trust between the authorities involved, enabling more effective European cooperation and the highest possible protection for the citizens when it comes to the use of this data. The measures to be taken should therefore be accurate and complete. They should protect fundamental rights and comply with the articles in the Charter of Fundamental Rights covering privacy and the protection of personal data.

I therefore welcome the political agreement reached with the Council, which will lead to the rapid adoption of this proposal for a framework decision.

Report: Chmielewski (A6-0163/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Creating the conditions for recovering fish stocks, in this case cod, is vital not only in terms of protecting marine biology resources but also keeping fisheries activity alive.

The objective should be to fish less when according to scientific research and to fishermen themselves, stocks are in need of recovery if fishing is to take place – perhaps on a bigger scale – in the future.

We must bear in mind, however, that these recovery plans, whereby fishing is restricted, have a serious economic and social impact that must be weighed up and taken into account. Against this backdrop, we support the proposals in this regard contained in the report. What is needed is for the sector to be compensated for the economic and social consequences of this break in fishing, and there should be a Community compensation fund specifically for this purpose. In other words the common fisheries policy must take on its responsibilities.

Our vote against Amendments 20, 21 and 22 was based on our view that decisions on total allowable catches and quotas should not be automatically linked to the opinions of the Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Other factors, economic and social factors for example, should be taken into account, as evidenced by representation in the Regional Advisory Councils.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) Despite the restrictions on fishing quotas introduced in recent years, some Baltic cod stocks are now below acceptable biological limits. The report wisely proposes an 8% reduction of the number of days at sea using fishing gear, more rigorous inspections, and in particular raising to 300 kg the limit above which fishing vessels must obtain permission from the competent bodies at the point of unloading. In addition, it proposes increasing the minimum size of cod fished in the Baltic to 40 cm.

The rapporteur also rightly refers to the issue of dividing the Baltic into an eastern and a western area, as these are two quite distinct ecosystems. Different fishing quotas should therefore be laid down for each of these areas of the Baltic. Priority should be given to the east as stocks there are now below acceptable biological limits.

The plan to prepare a report on the social and economic impact of implementation of the proposed regulation on the sector deserves our support too. The report should focus in particular on the employment structure and the financial situation of fishermen, ship owners and enterprises involved in cod fishing and processing.

Report: Salinas García (A6-0183/2007)

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I just wish to say that the Irish delegation and my colleagues in the PPE-DE Group voted in favour of this report. We are happy with its emphasis on the role of producer groups and crisis management.

However, we have a problem with two amendments, 11 and 111, which were voted through together. These two amendments will pose particular problems for potato growers in Ireland who are currently losing significant entitlements to the single farm payment to the national reserve because the land they use for growing potatoes is not eligible for the single farm payment as things stand.

We welcome the Commission’s proposal to remove this exclusion and to change this anomaly, and we hope that the Commission’s proposal is ratified by the Council, not the one as amended here this morning.

  Hynek Fajmon (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against the Salinas García report on market reforms in the fruit and vegetable sector.

The Commission believes that reform in the sector is needed, and this is a view I share. What the Commission is proposing, though, is not reform. What is needed is to end the unnecessary regulation of the entire sector, to remove export subsidies and to abolish quotas completely. This, however, is not what the Commission is proposing. Instead, it is proposing minor, cosmetic changes that retain the regulatory nature of the whole policy. Neither I nor the other MEPs from the Czech Civil Democratic Party (ODS) support this approach and we have accordingly voted against the report.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the bulk of the report by my fellow Member, Mrs Salinas García, on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector.

This important sector, which represents around 17% of the Union's agricultural production, is, in reality, very varied, fragile and confronted with structural problems, at the same time as being exposed to growing external pressure. It deserves to be supported, not only for producers but also for public health reasons – the health of European consumers – and for our food processing industry. The European Commission proposals are an initial basis for work that will have to be adjusted and improved in many areas. Nevertheless, I welcome the specific attention paid by the Union to this important sector.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Following the reform of the CAP, which introduced the principle of single payment and which paved the way for the decoupling of production aid, the Commission now feels it is the turn of fruit and vegetables.

Using the old arguments of competitiveness, market forces, the WTO and so on, the Commission has put forward proposals that will, if the governments of the Member States agree to them, lead to more abandonment of production and more unemployment in the future, and will link aid to ‘historical’ payments and to the single payment scheme, and we are opposed to this.

In Portugal, the industrial tomato sector is under threat. It is a sector in which there has been a great deal of investment, one that has developed, that has produced quantity and quality, and one in which the overwhelming majority of production provides work for many small and medium-sized farmers, family farming and many workers linked directly or indirectly to the agri-food industry.

If the Commission’s proposal were to go through, thousands of jobs in agriculture and industry would be put in jeopardy, even if in the short term there is still a payment to farmers and a transitional period.

Although the report introduced several measures that we welcome, it does not substantially change the Commission’s proposal and as such we could not vote in favour.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The proposed addition to the Commission’s proposal put forward by Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is beneath contempt. We firmly reject the proposals to subsidise growers of cherries and berries, mushrooms and fruit, to introduce area payments for garlic, to investigate the possible introduction of an EU quality label, to introduce an EU quality control agency for fruit and vegetables from third countries and to introduce a security fund for the said sector of cultivation and wordings relating to export refunds and the like for processed tomatoes, et cetera.

The June List observes, once again, that, in this situation, it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision in respect of the EU’s agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of heavy subsidies to all the various groups within the agricultural industry.

We have therefore voted against this report.

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The purpose of the proposed review of the regulation on fruit and vegetables is to adjust to the new CAP, the EU financial perspective and the WTO.

Decoupling subsidies from production, substantially reducing Community support and abolishing the remaining traces of export subsidies will result in increased imports and a reduction in exports, will shrink the manufacturing industry and turn certain factories into packaging units for imported raw materials and will result in drastic cutbacks or the abandonment of certain crops, the subsidies for which make a significant contribution to farmers’ incomes.

In Greece, the worst victims are mainly growers of juicing oranges, industrial tomatoes and sultanas, which are our country’s main products.

The result will be the concentration of the production of fruit and vegetables in few hands, the mass destruction of small and medium-sized farms, using decoupled subsidies as bait, and an increase in the profitability of commercial industrialists, with guaranteed cheap raw materials, both domestic and imported.

As far as producer organisations are concerned, their role is being upgraded, even using anti-democratic changes, so that even those who do not want to are forced to join.

However, the unwillingness of farmers to join producer organisations derives from their role as mediation bodies between farmers and commercial industrialists, for the benefit of the interests of the commercial industrialists.

We MEPs of the Greek Communist Party have voiced our opposition and voted against the report, because the proposed changes are yet another blow to small and medium-sized farms.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) This report sets right, to a certain extent, the market in fruit and vegetables, which is brim-full of excessively detailed regulation, and phases out export refunds for this sector. I am not, therefore, voting against the report, but the improvements to it are not great enough for me to vote in favour of it, so I am abstaining.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. I voted to abstain and against the amendments proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

These amendments moved away from the principle and practice of reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). I abstained where there was no clear implication for UK interests, but where there were clear concerns for continental Member States – 'hot pursuit' being that particular vote.

I also voted against eight amendments, which, when taken in combination, actually increased funds to fruit and vegetable sectors, which is against the UK Labour Party's view that support spending should be reduced and contradicts CAP reform.

Report: Barón Crespo/Brok (A6-0197/2007)

  Marcin Libicki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Montesquieu remarked that democracies are based on law, monarchies on honour and dictatorships on fear. As we are a democratic institution, I should like to say that I do not agree with legal acts referring to other legal acts that are not binding. I share the view expressed by Mrs Bonde on the subject. In that connection, I should like to point out that I voted against Amendment 25 to the report by Mr Crespo and Mr Brok. If by some mistake it appears that I voted in its favour, please note that my intention had been to vote against.

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI). – (PL) Mr President, I have today voted against the report calling for work on the new Union treaty, the new Constitution for Europe, to begin as soon as possible with a view to adoption of the draft document. The League of Polish Families to which I belong is opposed to the creation of a new European super state and to all measures aimed at depriving nation states of their sovereignty. We trust that the attempt to draft a new treaty based on the draft Constitution for Europe, which has been pushed through so forcibly by certain Members of this House, will end in failure.

  Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, contrary to the previous speaker, the Pensioners' Party is highly in favour of the existence of a Europe that is also political and that heralds benefits for citizens, in particular for citizens who want a future, because they are working now, and for citizens who want a present, because they are now retired and have the right to a better life than that experienced by the elderly and retired in the past.

Thus they look to Europe for security, because all too often, if not always, States ignore the real everyday issues that matter to citizens, such as how to survive in a global society that focuses purely on the ‘god of money’ and not on human beings at all stages of life, from the cradle to the grave.

We therefore hope that the European Constitution will be adopted as soon as possible.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of this report, which is basically a sound one. We wish, however, to offer a number of clarifications. We voted in favour of what is stated in paragraph 8 as we are in favour of strengthening the common foreign and security policy. It is important to point out, however, that we are not in favour of common defence.

Point 12 highlights issues such as Social Europe and the struggle against climate change that are important to Europeans. However, we are opposed to incorporating the Copenhagen criteria into the Constitution. We believe that the Copenhagen criteria are important, but we do not want them to be written into the Constitution as this would make it harder to continue enlargement. For the same reason, we are also opposed to other obstacles being placed in the path of the candidate countries.

We furthermore reject the preferential position proposed under paragraph 18 for religious communities in comparison with the rest of civil society.

  Liam Aylward, Brian Crowley, Seán Ó Neachtain and Eoin Ryan (UEN), in writing. The Constitutional Treaty is a landmark document which provides a blueprint for a more dynamic and effective European Union, strengthens the democratic character of an enlarged Union and enhances our decision-making capacity and ability to act on the world stage. We are committed to preserving to the greatest extent possible the substance of the Constitution.

We support this report. We reject the concept of a two-tier Europe.

However, we have voted against paragraph 11 regarding the diminution of the protection of the rights of citizens because of its vagueness. How is this decided and who decides that the protection of rights of citizens has been diminished?

We have also voted against paragraph 20, which demands that all Member States coordinate their ratification procedures in order to allow for simultaneous ratification. How can we coordinate between different systems of Member States particularly when some require ratification by referenda and others by Parliament? We need to respect the ratification system of each Member State. Saying this, we encourage governments to come together and decide on as short a timeframe as possible for agreement and ratification of a Treaty according to their national requirements.

We voted in favour of CA28 as the language is more reflective of the reality than that of the PSE amendment regarding ratification in France and the Netherlands.

(Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained during the final vote on the Barón-Brok report on the roadmap for the Union’s constitutional process.

Indeed, the rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty by two Member States in fact nullifies the proposal submitted for ratification by the Member States in 2005. This established fact must therefore be taken into account by the Heads of State or Government who cannot keep the initial text even ‘in a different format’.

Equally, the process of drafting a new treaty must not take place at the expense of European democracy by means of a mere intergovernmental conference.

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. The Socialist group has approved this resolution by an overwhelming majority. I should add on behalf of the Labour MEPs that the EPLP fully supports the main conclusion of this report, namely "a commitment to calling an Intergovernmental Conference and the definition of a roadmap containing a procedure, a clear mandate and a clear objective of reaching an agreement before the end of this year". However, we thought that it was inappropriate to single out some - but not other - elements contained in the Constitutional Treaty as being essential, as the new treaty will only see the light of day if it is acceptable to all 27 member states.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour because I feel it is crucial and increasingly urgent that we find solutions whereby we can overcome the problems and challenges facing the EU, both internally and externally. This report is well-balanced and represents an important contribution to resolving the institutional deadlock in which the Union finds itself at the earliest opportunity. The Union must be given adequate resources to meet the citizens’ concerns regarding the challenges of globalisation and climate change, thereby contributing towards strengthening the democratic control over its decision-making processes.

The new Treaty, regardless of the name and the structure it is eventually given, must retain the thrust of the text already ratified by a number of Member States and at the same time incorporate the amendments needed to obtain the consensus it cannot do without. With the right legislative and budgetary procedures for giving the EU the maximum amount of decision-making ability and for making its policies as effective as possible, the new Treaty may help resolve some of the serious problems that Europe is facing.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The adoption of this report is definitive proof of the flagrant disregard for the sovereign decision made by the people of France and the Netherlands, demonstrating once again that Parliament’s concept of democracy does not extend as far as respect for the sovereign decisions of people expressed via referendums.

This decision taken by the majority in Parliament demonstrates that the ‘period of reflection’ was nothing more than a means of overlooking the negative result of the two referendums and of preventing others, in which there could be further rejections of the so-called European Constitution, from being held.

Two years on, more pressure is being exerted to step up the capitalist penetration of the EU, the neoliberal policies, the ever-faster militarisation and the centralisation of power into the hands of supranational institutions, which are becoming increasingly distant from the citizens and dominated by the major powers.

It is unacceptable for Parliament to confer on itself a legitimacy it does not have, which is precisely what it is doing in its attempts to interfere with the timetable and content of the process, that is to say, in the sovereign decision of different countries, and to coordinate ratification processes.

We are in favour of a more democratic, fairer Europe that is characterised by solidarity, a Europe that promotes peace and cooperation with people from all parts of the world, a Europe that complies with the principle of sovereign States with equal rights.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The federalist majority in the European Parliament are not ideologically representative of their electorates as far as matters pertaining to the EU Constitution are concerned. At present, everything possible is being done to avoid asking the voters for their opinions on Europe’s future via referendums. We are in favour of arranging referendums on such matters, but we do not believe that the European Parliament is the proper body to push through referendums in the Member States.

The federalist majority would now like to secure as much as possible of the supranationalism from the old draft Constitutional Treaty by means of simply changing the title of the draft EU Constitution.

We have therefore voted against the report submitted by Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

The Union needs a treaty that builds on the self-determination of the Member States and through which, together, we regulate how cross-border issues are to be managed.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) One only has to read point 6 to justify rejecting the Resolution. According to Point 6, the Resolution ‘reaffirms its commitment to achieving a settlement of the ongoing constitutional process of the European Union that is based on the content of the Constitutional Treaty, possibly under a different presentation …’

These few words lay bare the true intention of the current (cosy) negotiations taking place in the Council – in other words, between the governments run by the Portuguese Socialists, the German Christian Democrat/Social Democrat coalition, and so on – which are purely and simply an attempt to (re)impose the thrust of the Treaty rejected by France and the Netherlands. This is indicative of deep disdain for the democratic sovereign will expressed by the people of these two countries in national referendums.

During the debate, did anyone actually ask whether they ‘take people for fools’? Yet it is precisely because they do not ‘take people for fools’ that the political forces of the right and the social democrats, in cahoots with one another, negotiate ‘behind closed doors’ and keep their cards close to their chests so as to preclude the risk of failure.

The German Presidency moves full steam ahead, claiming it has a ‘mandate’ to ‘preserve’ the content and ‘substance’ of the so-called ‘European Constitution’ in the ‘new’ draft Treaty to be presented by December 2007 (!) and ratified by 2009.

In a word, unacceptable.

  Dan Jørgensen (PSE), in writing. (DA) The Danish Social Democratic delegation in the European Parliament has voted in favour of the own-initiative report on the roadmap for the Union’s Constitutional Process. We should like to emphasise in this connection that the issue of how and when the individual Member State chooses to ratify a new Treaty should continue to be a matter for itself as a sovereign nation.

We think it sensible, however, so to coordinate the ratification process that, irrespective of the forms it might take in individual Member States, it is conducted in such a way that it will be possible formally to complete it in all the countries simultaneously, as indicated in paragraph 20 of the report.

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I believe that the majority of the European Parliament has not sought to respond to the message sent out by the EU populations that rejected the Constitutional Treaty. By rejecting Amendment 1, Parliament has refused to allow the people to be consulted by referendum on any new treaty. The fact is, this element is crucial because the opportunity for them to impose social policies or policies matching their aspirations depends on it. This is a major shortcoming of the European Union. That is why I shall vote against this report.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. I voted against paragraph 20 (original text) in the above-mentioned report as I believe that the proposal to hold a ratification process simultaneously across all EU Member States is impractical.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report endeavours to resuscitate the European Constitution. The European Parliament is insultingly ignoring the rejection and condemnation of the 'European Constitution', through referenda, by the French and Dutch people and by the other peoples whose governments have deprived them of the right to express themselves.

The familiar coalition of the political spokesmen of capital (conservatives, socialists and liberals) and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is calling on the governments of the Member States to come to an agreement before the end of 2007, to adopt and enforce the 'European Constitution' before the European elections in 2009, with the same reactionary content, perhaps packaged differently, in order to deceive the peoples.

There can be no progressive 'European Constitution' of the imperialist EU of capital. Any 'Constitutional' Treaty will be a treaty which safeguards and promotes the interests and ambitions of big, Euro-unifying business, just like the current treaties of the EU and, previously, of the EEC.

The European plutocracy, the imperialists and their servants need a European Constitution, in order to shield their power, in order to safeguard the capitalist system, in order to strike at the rights of the working class and the peoples of Europe, in order to repress the grassroots movements and in order to step up their aggressive policy of intervention and war.

It is in the interests of the people to bury the 'Constitutional Treaty' and the EU itself once and for all.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. (SK) Critics frequently describe the EU as a strong organisation which meddles in too many areas. As an MEP for Slovakia, a new Member State which has only recently acceded to the Union, I feel that we should have a stronger Europe capable of greater action. For this reason I believe it is essential to adopt a revised constitutional document, that is, to have clear rules of the game. The Union needs to reform the founding treaties in a way which would enjoy broad public support.

I appreciate the efforts by Chancellor Angela Merkel to lead the Union out of its constitutional crisis by introducing a road map offering appropriate solutions for the problems that the European Union is facing both internally and externally, as well as the problems associated with the expansion and deepening of the EU’s political dimension.

An enlarged EU needs tools and means to operate efficiently, to strengthen its role in the world, and to address the concerns of its citizens against the background of challenges brought about inter alia by globalisation, climate change, the need to ensure energy supply and an ageing population. Many of the issues which provoked some of the greatest concern among the European public, such as the directive on services in the internal market and the financial framework, have since been resolved.

As reiterated in the Berlin Declaration on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, we must build the EU on a renewed joint foundation and we must do so before the 2009 elections for the European Parliament. This is why I have voted in favour of the report by the rapporteurs Enrique Barón Crespo and Elmar Brok.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Had a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty taken place in Portugal, in the wording and circumstances of two years ago, I would have voted ‘yes’. Among other things, the institutional stability that would have arisen would have been beneficial to the EU. As events turned out, precisely as stipulated, two countries exercised their right to a veto, which represents a considerable change in circumstances. We must now respond to reality, not in spite of it.

I still believe that the institutional architecture needs to be adjusted to accommodate the reality of ‘Europe’ enlarged to 27 and as such I feel that the best solution is the maximalist solution to overcoming the difficulties arising from this new set of circumstances – if only to ensure that the solution reached is a stable one – but a minimalist solution to introducing amendments that, no matter how much the authors of the proposed Treaty would like, were rejected. Realism is no less virtuous than idealism.

Lastly, I feel that as regards the referendum, and the possibility of holding one in Portugal, the further away the solution is from the Constitutional Treaty, the less the need for a referendum; and vice-versa, of course.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. (SV) I abstained in the vote on the roadmap for the draft Constitutional Treaty in respect of an amendment stating that all countries ‘shall’ hold referendums. I am in favour of referendums, but this is something that each Member State must decide for itself. The German constitution, for example, does not recognise the instrument of referendums.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. I, along with my EPLP colleagues, voted to abstain on critical issues of this report, which, even as an own-initiative endeavour, is inappropriate on certain levels.

Paragraph 5 is an ambiguous reference to the Member States that have not put the text to ratification yet. There are also issues where inappropriate demands are made on a list of issues or concern idle threats to reject Council negotiations. Alongside this is a request to hold simultaneous ratification, which could present serious problems in many Member States.

However, there were other serious issues which could be supported and where I could support them, I did.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. (PL) This is a very significant report, which will enable the European Parliament to make its views on the action plan regarding the European Union’s constitutional process heard at the forthcoming June European Council.

Every effort should be made to preserve the content of the treaty, whilst at the same time including in the text provisions on the new challenges facing Europe. I could mention climate change, social Europe, the war on terror, inter-cultural dialogue and economic management. It is also important to point out that the so-called mini-treaty does not seem to provide a solution to this difficult situation.

The European Council should convene an intergovernmental conference as soon as possible and reach a compromise before the end of 2007, so that decisions on the ratification process can be taken by the end of 2008. This would allow the incoming Parliament elected in 2009 to operate within the framework of the new Constitutional Treaty.

Motion for a resolution: B6-0234/2007

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The debate on the definition of the functions of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) comes through clearly in Parliament’s resolution, and in the conclusions of the Council. It is abundantly clear that attempts are being made to control and manipulate the UNHCR.

It is in this context that one must understand the criticism and pressure from the EU, regarding, firstly, the manner in which some countries have been elected to the body – the EU opposes the so-called ‘clean slate’ principle and favours the introduction of eligibility criteria; secondly, the ‘special procedure’ for increasing the mandates per country and the possibility of creating new mandates by simple majority – and the absence of a ‘code of conduct’ for this mechanism; and thirdly, the modalities of the ‘Universal Periodic Review’.

In other words, what is needed is, on the one hand, to continue to monitor the development of the UNHCR, especially given the USA and its allies are known to manipulate it, and on the other hand, to support our proposals to promote fundamental freedoms, rights and guarantees, social progress, peace and solidarity, the rejection of the use of human rights to disguise a policy of interventionism and aggression towards sovereign peoples and States.

Report: Gibault (A6-0199/2007)

  Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a representative of the Pensioners’ Party I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Gibault on artists’ working conditions and pensions.

There are artists who become very famous and certainly do not need the European Parliament to facilitate their movement and pension conditions, but there are also excellent artists who unfortunately do not have great success; such artists, and there are many of them, are nonetheless human beings – workers and pensioners who deserve the same respect as all other citizens.

There are artists who live a life of work and poverty, unprotected by regulation and without being shown respect. This is all the more serious when the person to whom a lack of respect is shown has a sensitive soul, as artists have.

That is why I voted in favour, and I hope that Europe will do more for artists all over Europe and throughout the world.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of Claire Gibault’s report on the social status of artists. I want to support her commendable work in this area, as she, an artist herself, cares about European artists’ livelihoods.

We of course know that many artists today depend for their livelihood on very short-term contracts in different countries in Europe. It is therefore very relevant to ensure that artists in Europe also enjoy proper social status and receive social security, and thus in time a pension, because it is a fact that we in Europe want to promote education and culture. We want to promote the European cultural arena because we know that it is the most important area in decision-making in Europe. If that is healthy, we can then also build both a single market and a foreign and security policy upon it.

I actually voted in favour of this report as a European, as a Finn and as a member of the Finnish Centre Party, Keskusta, which also represents the Finnish cultural movement.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I feel it is important that European artists can benefit from an appropriate level of integration in their professional activities.

European standards must be applied with a view to having a dynamic and innovative European cultural policy in all branches of the arts, enabling us to offer artists the social guarantees enjoyed by all other European workers.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We know that this report addresses issues that need to be treated with special care. Yet there are two points that must be made. First and foremost, it is necessary to confer on artists labour and social rights, in view of the specific nature of their activities and in compliance with the freedom of expression and creation.

We therefore feel it is crucial to take account of the activities of those working in creative arts and to improve their social status. We are critical, however, of some of the proposals in this report on which Parliament has voted.

We know that cultural democratisation can only take place under the right conditions and that these times in which we live, characterised as they are by ever deepening neoliberalism, are not conducive to improving the working conditions and the creativity of most artists. In Portugal, the situation in this area is complicated too, with attacks on the rights gained and cuts in cultural and artistic activities, in which everybody – the artists and the population as a whole – loses out. We hope, however, that something can be done to give more visibility to these issues.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The ability of artists to make a living is an important issue, but it is one that the Member States have responsibility for resolving politically in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

We have therefore voted against this report.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) Mrs Gibault’s report aimed at improving employment conditions for artists deserves strong support. Most of the difficulties encountered by artists working in Community countries other than their country of origin are not due to cultural issues. They relate for example to mobility, visa policy, health policy, social security, unemployment and pensions.

The report urges the Commission and the Member States to introduce a European Professional Register for artists. This would contain information on the status of each artist, the nature and duration of contracts, together with information on employers. The register would make it possible to transfer pension entitlements and social benefits acquired by artists in third countries when they returned to their country of origin. It would also allow experience gained whilst working in a Member State to be taken into account.

The challenge facing European cultural policy is the creation of a dynamic cultural environment that is creative and innovative with respect to all types of art. By supporting this report we are committing ourselves to providing artists with the social guarantees enjoyed by all other European workers.

  Daniel Strož (GUE/NGL), in writing. (CS) I shall be voting in favour of the adoption of the report on the social status of artists. I feel that this will be a step towards resolving this problem, albeit one that merely scratches the surface and that will require further work.

I feel that the report implicitly places the emphasis on performing artists and rather overlooks literature, which is a highly creative and important branch of the arts. As far as the report is concerned, writers are mere amateurs whose work is rarely classified as ‘professional artistic activity’.

As for the conditions that exist in, say, the Czech Republic, I know of only one solitary author who is ‘allowed’ to be a professional artist. Furthermore, there is clear and convincing evidence that the Unie českých spisovatelů (Czech Writers’ Union) – a left-leaning Czech writers’ organisation – has for years been silenced and segregated by the Czech Culture Ministry. This only goes to show the sorry state of support for the art of writing.

The report also fails to define what is meant by the term ‘European artist’ even though it uses the term on a number of occasions. Do writers come into this category? If so, I feel that they cannot be measured in the same way as so-called performing artists.

Report: Itälä (A6-0202/2007)

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report but with a cautionary note in terms of the proposed increase in spending on information, as it would relate to a proposal to bring local journalists here to Brussels. We would need to be very clear about what we are going to do with the local journalists and ensure that we make information that is available here relevant to the people who read and listen to local media. I do not think we have done that particularly well in the past, so we need more details on this issue.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) Mr President, today Parliament adopted a resolution concerning the United Nations Human Rights Council and its fifth session. As one of the authors of this resolution, I am very pleased that all political groups have agreed on an assessment of the first year of operation of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and which shortcomings it needs to attend to. They have also authorised a European Parliament ad hoc delegation, which will participate next week in the fifth Human Rights Council plenary session – a session, which is particularly important for the future of this organisation.

As one of the authors of this resolution and a member of the delegation, I would like to thank Parliament and my colleagues for supporting the resolution.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) With regard to Parliament’s estimates of revenue and expenditure for 2008, we wish to highlight just two of the many aspects worthy of consideration.

The first concerns the plan to earmark EUR 10 300 000 in 2008 for ‘an awareness campaign in view of the 2009 European elections’ and EUR 900 000 for implementation of the Parliamentary Television Channel. This is a matter of particular concern given that no detailed information or justifications have been given regarding the use of these financial resources. For example, how will they be used, and by whom? What are the actions to be funded? Who is to decide how they are to be used, and according to what criteria?

Might it be that this ‘awareness campaign’ is being used, rather like the referendums on the lapsed Constitutional Treaty, as a covert way of using Community money, scandalously, to fund propaganda campaigns to promote the content of the Treaty?

The second is the effective guarantee and exercise of multilingualism in the European institutions and, in this case, Parliament. We wish to highlight the fact that the increasing outsourcing of language and translation services, and other types of unstable contract, inevitably affects the quality of the service and undermines the rights of those providing this service.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. (SV) In the first amendment, Mr Lundgren points out that the travelling circus moving between the three different places of work results in absurdly high costs. With that much I agree. The problem lies with the accusation, which finds its way into the third amendment, that the EU would be going in for questionable property speculation. The opposite is, of course, true: the European Parliament saves money by owning its buildings. Because there were parts of the proposal I agreed with, I abstained from voting in the first case and voted against in the second.

In the second amendment, Mr Lundgren expresses the view that the EU should refrain from conducting centralised campaigns. In this matter too, I am in agreement: it is unlikely that Europeans would have a more positive attitude towards the EU as a result of the Commission’s communications strategies. I would have difficulty, however, objecting to the EU choosing to invest resources in providing information about its activities in the run-up to a European Parliament election. It is by working constructively, notably in our own countries between elections, that we are best at providing information at local level. It is when we engage in constructive politics that we are best at communicating policy.

7. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

8. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

9. Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

10. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

11. Adjournment of the session

  President - I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.

(The sitting was closed at 1.00 p.m.)