Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-23-Speech-4-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050623.6.4-071"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@cs1
"Hr. formand, tak for den fremragende disciplin, De har pålagt forsamlingen.
Jeg takker hr. Poettering for hans venlige ord, og vi vil gøre vores bedste for at nå en aftale om nogle af de vanskelige spørgsmål, særligt de finansielle overslag. Han mindede mig om John Majors forhandlinger i 1992, så jeg var taknemmelig for, at hr. Schulz mindede om, at vi slog både ham ved valget i 1997 og tre efterfølgende ledere, men den bemærkning hører måske hjemme i et andet forum.
Med hensyn til forfatningen havde jeg ikke bemærket, at De selv sagde det, hr. formand, men hvis De sagde, som det blev refereret under debatten, at det ikke var teksten, men konteksten, så er jeg helt enig i det. På et tidspunkt bliver vi nødt til at vende tilbage til diskussionen om fornuftige regler til at styre vores arbejde i et EU med 25 medlemmer - og sågar større tal i fremtiden - og ikke 15. Sandheden er, at vi har brug for et nyt sæt regler for Europa, og derfor var den impuls, som var anledningen til forfatningen, helt korrekt. Det er imidlertid nødvendigt at få den politiske retning på plads, hvis forfatningen skal havde den støtte, den bør have.
Hr. Watson udfordrede mig med hensyn til gennemsigtighed i Rådet, og det er der med hensyn til lovgivningen helt sikkert stærke argumenter for. Lad os overveje det under vores formandskab.
Det er godt at se hr. Cohn-Bendit efter alle disse år. En gang for længe siden lyttede jeg til Deres taler, og nu lytter De til mine.
Kun historien vil vise, om det er et fremskridt eller ej!
Jeg beklager, at jeg ikke brugte mere af min tale på spørgsmålet om miljøet og klimaændringerne. Jeg håber, at vi på G8-topmødet i det mindste vil have en chance for, at disse spørgsmål kommer til at dominere diskussionen. De vil være et vigtigt aspekt af vores formandskab for EU.
Med hensyn til, hvad hr. Mote sagde om rabatten, vil jeg gentage, at vi må se på alt dette fra alle sider. Alle disse spørgsmål må løses samlet. Jeg vil blot påpege, at uden rabatten ville vi have bidraget med omkring 15 gange mere end lande af tilsvarende størrelse i de sidste 10 år, og selv med rabatten bidrager vi med mere. Hvis den slet ikke eksisterede, ville vi i løbet af de næste finansielle overslag være den største nettobidragyder. Jeg forstår Deres bekymringer, og jeg gentager, at Storbritannien vil betale sin retfærdige andel af udvidelsen. Vi støtter udvidelsen og vil bidrage til den. Spørgsmålet skal imidlertid løses på en måde, som er tilfredsstillende for alle, og særligt i forbindelse med den revision, som vi diskuterede tidligere.
Jeg beklager, at jeg ikke kan tage alle individuelle punkter op. I nogle indlæg har der været en fornemmelse af, at det kun er en disput mellem ledere baseret på personlighed eller uenigheder mellem lande. Jeg vil gerne understrege, at jeg mener, at jeg generelt set har vist gennem de sidste otte år, at jeg altid har forsøgt at opnå konsensus på europæisk niveau, og det er vigtigt, at vi gør det.
Jeg opnåede tydeligvis ikke konsensus om den bemærkning!
Jeg vil gerne beskrive det problem for Dem, som vi har i øjeblikket. Hvorfor er jeg så engageret i spørgsmålet om reformer? Fordi det haster. I Europa har vi ikke gjort os helt klart, hvad det er for en konkurrencedygtig økonomisk udvikling, vi står over for i dag. Den er alvorlig, og den er presserende!
Det er mærkeligt, hvordan ting sker, men netop i dag nævnte mange Kina, Indien osv. i deres taler. Imidlertid forstår folk nu, at situationen er alvorlig. Det er ikke bare Kina og Indien. Tag lande som Vietnam eller Thailand i dag. De forandringer, der sker i deres økonomier, er forbløffende og dramatiske. Problemet er, at man i dag er nødt til konstant at tilpasse sig til denne ændringsproces. Min bekymring er, at hvis vi ikke gør det, vil der ske to ting. For det første bliver selve den sociale model og forestillingen om social solidaritet, som vi - og jeg - tror på, bragt i fare. For det andet, hvis ikke vi kan håndtere udfordringen om forandring, og hvis vi ikke kan tilpasse os, så vil det skabe opbakning om den politik, som hr. Farage skitserede for Det Forenede Kongeriges Uafhængighedsparti. Jeg må sige til ham, at jeg er helt uenig i denne politik. Jeg ønsker ikke, at Storbritannien skulle føre en sag mod EU. Det er overhovedet ikke min hensigt. Forskellen mellem Dem og mig er meget enkel. De betragter EU's problemer som en mulighed for at ødelægge EU, jeg betragter dem som tegn på behovet for at styrke EU. Der er stor forskel på de to ting.
Jeg er klar over, som jeg har sagt i det britiske parlament og hjemme i Storbritannien, at denne debat om forandring og reform kun kan føres ud fra et proeuropæisk perspektiv. Det forstår jeg. Det er ikke nok, at alle påberåber sig Europa og siger, at hvis nogen udfordrer mine meninger, betyder det, at de er imod Europa. Som det så rigtigt blev formuleret af flere talere under debatten, så er spørgsmålet ikke, om Europa skal forandres, eller om vi tror på Europa, men hvordan Europa skal forandres, og hvad det er for et Europa, vi tror på i dag. Det er spørgsmålet for os, og det er det spørgsmål, vi skal tage fat på med ægte og målrettet seriøsitet.
Jeg vil gerne komme med en anden afsluttende bemærkning. Jeg har sagt, hvorfor jeg støtter forfatningen. Men jeg vil være ærlig. En ting, som har bekymret mig under alle disse debatter om forfatningen er, at der er en tendens til, hvilket jeg har bemærket gennem mine otte år som premierminister, at Europa nogle gange falder tilbage til institutionelle spørgsmål, når det, det i virkeligheden handler om, er politisk retning. Vi kan diskutere nogle af disse institutionelle spørgsmål i meget lang tid. Somme tider kan man også finde det hos ledere - og jeg undtager ikke mig selv - som hellere vil skyde skylden på en EU-institution, når der opstår et problem, end de vil genskabe en europæisk politik. Det er rigtigt, at vi har en tendens til at gøre det. Min pointe er, at når vi beslutter Europas retning - og det er det, de kommende måneder skal handle om, når vi skal diskutere, hvordan Europa skal håndtere disse store forandringer, så bør vi altid huske på de daglige bekymringer hos de mennesker, vi repræsenterer. De er den direkte valgte del af de europæiske institutioner. De ved, hvor vigtigt det er at svare på det, folk taler om, når man kommer hjem til valgkredsen. De taler om job, sikkerhed, kriminalitet og indvandring. De er bekymrede over forandringerne i deres dagligliv. Vi skal have klare, stærke, ordentlige politikker til at håndtere disse udfordringer. Hvis vi gør det, vil de svare med at sige, at de synes, det er fornuftigt med en ny europæisk forfatning, for så vil de forstå den politiske kontekst, som denne forfatningsdebat finder sted i. Det er et afgørende øjeblik.
Det ville være interessant at se, hvordan De ville klare Dem i det britiske House of Commons under spørgetiden.
Sammenfattende vil jeg kun sige, at dagens debat i Europa-Parlamentet har været glimrende. Det var en ære for mig at overvære den, jeg ved, at der er blevet fremsat mange forskellige holdninger, og at der er blevet sagt nogle kritiske ting om mig og mit formandskab. Det er en del af en sund demokratisk debat. Jeg vil blot foreslå Dem, at hvis vi kunne gentage denne debat i de enkelte lande og gå ud og komme i kontakt med vores folk og tale med dem om, hvad vi tror på, hvorfor vi mener, at Europa er nødvendigt for verden i dag, hvorfor vi ønsker at lave de nødvendige ændringer for at bringe det på linje med folks prioriteter, så vil selve debatten hjælpe Europa. Ved selve det at række ud til folk vil vi vise vores relevans, i selve det at kunne besvare deres bekymringer vil vi styrke det europæiske projekt. Jeg har virkelig været imponeret over dagens debat. Det har været et sandt privilegium at overvære den, og jeg takker, fordi De har lyttet til mig.
Jeg takker alle, som har bidraget til denne debat. Det har i hvert fald ikke skortet på gode råd, som jeg takker Dem for. Som De sikkert ved, kommer nogle af vores kolleger på tilhørerpladserne i dag fra Kuwait, og de har netop vedtaget en lov, som det blev sagt tidligere, som for første gang giver kvinder stemmeret. De er et glimrende eksempel på, hvordan fremskridt og forandringer kan ske. Det glæder mig at se Dem her.
Desuden har mange talere bedt mig om at forsøge at opnå konsensus i Europa. Det må siges, at med den brede vifte af opfattelser bliver det noget af en udfordring. Måske var et af de mest interessante forslag, at vi skulle gøre walisisk til et af de officielle sprog i EU. Det kunne måske være en af måderne at opnå konsensus på, men vi får se.
En ting er sikker. Vores debat i dag har vakt en enorm interesse, ikke kun her i Parlamentet, men også uden for.
Jeg vil forsøge at besvare nogle af de specifikke kommentarer fra lederne og derefter komme med et kort resumé. Jeg takker kommissionsformand Barroso for hans venlige ord. Jeg er enig i den dagsorden, han har sat. Der er mange ting til fælles, som vi kan arbejde med. Min eneste kommentar til revisionsklausulen med hensyn til de kommende finansielle overslag er, at den skal være meget klar, den må ikke være flertydig. Lad os sammen arbejde for det."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Ich danke Ihnen für die ausgezeichnete Disziplin, die Sie eingeführt haben.
Was Herrn Pöttering betrifft, so danke ich ihm für seine freundliche Meinung, und wir werden unser Möglichstes tun, um bei einigen der problematischsten Themen, insbesondere der Finanziellen Vorausschau, eine Einigung zu erzielen. Er erinnerte mich an die Verhandlungen John Majors im Jahre 1992, weswegen ich Herrn Schulz dankbar bin, dass er uns wieder ins Gedächtnis rief, dass wir sowohl ihn bei den Wahlen 1997, als auch seine drei Nachfolger besiegt haben, doch das sollte vielleicht an einem anderem Ort angesprochen werden.
Was die Verfassung angeht, so war mir nicht bewusst, dass Sie, Herr Präsident, dies selbst sagten, aber wenn Sie gesagt haben - so wie es im Laufe der Aussprache berichtet wurde -, dass es nicht der Text, sondern der Kontext ist, so stimme ich Ihnen auf ganzer Linie zu. Es wird eine Zeit kommen, in der wir auf die Diskussion vernünftiger Regelungen für unsere Tätigkeit als Europäische Union, nicht der 15, sondern der 25 – und künftig sogar noch mehr – Mitgliedstaaten zurückkommen müssen. Die Wahrheit ist, dass wir ein neues Regelwerk für Europa brauchen, und somit war der Impuls, der zur Ausarbeitung der Verfassung führte, völlig richtig. Es ist jedoch unerlässlich, die politische Richtung zu sichern, damit die Verfassung so unterstützt wird, wie es sein sollte.
Herr Watson sprach mich auf die Transparenz des Rates und natürlich die Gesetzgebung an, und dafür gibt es gute Argumente. Damit müssen wir uns während unserer Präsidentschaft befassen.
Es ist schön, Herrn Cohn-Bendit nach all diesen Jahren wiederzusehen. Vor langer Zeit hörte ich Ihren Reden zu und nun ist es andersherum.
Nur die Geschichte wird uns sagen können, ob dies ein Fortschritt ist oder nicht!
Ich entschuldige mich dafür, dass ich den Themen Umwelt und Klimawandel in meiner Rede nicht mehr Zeit gewidmet habe. Aber ich hoffe, dass wir auf dem G8-Gipfel zumindest Gelegenheit haben werden, diese Themen einmal in den Mittelpunkt der Diskussion zu stellen. Sie werden einen der zentralen Punkte unserer Präsidentschaft bilden.
Was die Äußerungen von Herrn Mote zum Rabatt angeht, so wiederhole ich, dass wir uns damit während der Runde befassen müssen. All diese Fragen müssen zusammen gelöst werden. Ich möchte nur darauf hinweisen, dass wir ohne den Rabatt in den letzten zehn Jahren rund fünfzehnmal so viel beigetragen hätten wie andere Länder ähnlicher Größe, und selbst mit diesem Rabatt steuern wir mehr bei. Wenn es ihn nicht gäbe, wären wir für den Zeitraum der nächsten Finanziellen Vorausschau der größte Nettozahler. Ich kann Ihre Bedenken verstehen und wiederhole, dass Großbritannien seinen Anteil an den Kosten für die Erweiterung tragen wird. Wir unterstützen die Erweiterung und werden unseren Beitrag leisten. Die Frage muss jedoch auf eine Art und Weise gelöst werden, die für alle Beteiligten zufrieden stellend ist, und insbesondere in dem Kontext, der die Überprüfung betrifft, über die wir vorhin gesprochen haben.
Es tut mir Leid, dass ich nicht auf jeden einzelnen Punkt eingehen kann. In manchen Redebeiträgen entstand der Eindruck, dass es sich hier nur um eine Auseinandersetzung zwischen führenden Politikern handelt, die auf persönlichen Angriffen oder Uneinigkeiten zwischen verschiedenen Ländern basiert. Ich möchte ganz klar sagen, dass ich im Großen und Ganzen der Auffassung bin, in den letzten acht Jahren bewiesen zu haben, dass ich immer bemüht war, auf europäischer Ebene einen Konsens zu erzielen, und dass es wichtig ist, dass wir dies tun.
Bei dieser Aussage habe ich offenbar keinen Konsens erzielt!
Die momentanen Schwierigkeiten, die ich Ihnen beschreiben möchte, sind folgende: Warum ist mir die Reformagenda so außerordentlich wichtig? Weil ich den Eindruck habe, dass sie dringend erforderlich ist. In Europa haben wir nicht ganz begriffen, vor welcher wirtschaftlichen Herausforderung wir hinsichtlich des Wettbewerbs stehen. Sie ist ernst und dringend!
Der Lauf der Dinge ist schon merkwürdig, aber gerade jetzt haben alle in ihren Reden China, Indien usw. erwähnt. Nun wird jedoch der Ernst dieser Lage erkannt. Es sind nicht nur China und Indien: Nehmen wir beispielsweise Länder wie Vietnam oder Thailand. Die Veränderungen, die sich in deren Wirtschaft vollziehen, sind erstaunlich und dramatisch. Das Problem ist, dass man sich in der heutigen Welt ständig an diesen Wandel anpassen muss. Was mir Sorge bereitet ist, dass, wenn wir uns nicht anpassen, zwei Dinge geschehen werden. Erstens werden genau das Sozialmodell und die Vorstellung von der sozialen Solidarität gefährdet, an die wir und ich glauben. Zweitens werden, wenn wir die Herausforderung des Wandels nicht bewältigen können und nicht in der Lage sind, uns anzupassen, genau die Politiken unterstützt, die Herr Farage für die britische Unabhängigkeitspartei dargelegt hat. Ich muss ihm sagen, dass ich mit diesen Politiken ganz und gar nicht einverstanden bin. Ich will nicht, dass Großbritannien in eine Position gerät, eine Klage gegen die Europäische Union anstrengen zu müssen. Das entspricht ganz und gar nicht meiner Vorstellung. Der Unterschied zwischen Ihnen und mir ist ganz einfach: Für Sie sind die Probleme der Europäischen Union eine Chance, die Europäische Union zu zerstören, für mich sind sie notwendig, um die Europäische Union neu zu beleben. Zwischen diesen beiden Ansichten besteht ein himmelweiter Unterschied.
Ich bin mir darüber im Klaren, wie ich in meinem eigenen Parlament und in meinem eigenen Land bereits sagte, dass diese Diskussion um Wandel und Reform nicht anders geführt werden kann als aus einer proeuropäischen Perspektive. So verstehe ich es. Es reicht nicht aus, dass jeder Einzelne Europa einfach für sich beansprucht und wenn man eine Äußerung in Frage stellt, dass das dann gleich bedeutet, man sei irgendwie gegen Europa. Wie mehrere Redner in der Aussprache richtig sagten, ist die Frage nicht die, ob Europa sich verändern sollte oder ob wir an Europa glauben, sondern wie Europa sich verändern sollte und an welche Art Europa wir heute glauben. Das ist doch die Frage, und das ist die Frage, die wir mit großer Ernsthaftigkeit angehen müssen.
Einen weiteren Punkt möchte ich abschließend noch ansprechen. Ich habe gesagt, warum ich für die Verfassung bin. Ich will Ihnen gegenüber jedoch offen sein. Was mich bei sämtlichen Diskussionen über die Verfassung beunruhigt hat war, dass ich während meiner achtjährigen Amtszeit als Premierminister eine Tendenz festgestellt habe, dass Europa mitunter noch einmal auf institutionelle Fragen zurückkommt, wenn es eigentlich um die politische Richtung geht. Einige dieser institutionellen Fragen können wir sehr lange erörtern. Das gilt manchmal auch für politische Führungskräfte – und ich schließe mich selbst da nicht aus –, die, wenn es ein Problem gibt, eher einem europäischen Organ die Schuld dafür geben wollen, als eine europäische Politik umzugestalten. Es stimmt, wir neigen alle dazu. Worum es mir dabei geht, wenn wir die Richtung Europas bestimmen – und damit werden wir uns in den nächsten Monaten befassen müssen –, wenn wir darüber sprechen, wie Europa mit diesen großen Herausforderungen umgeht, ist, dass wir unser Hauptaugenmerk dabei immer auf das richten sollten, was die Menschen, die wir vertreten, Tag für Tag bewegt. Sie sind der direkt gewählte Teil der europäischen Organe. Sie wissen, wie wichtig das ist, wenn Sie Ihre Wahlkreise besuchen, um ihnen Rede und Antwort zu stehen. Dort geht es um Arbeitsplätze, Sicherheit, Kriminalität und Einwanderung. Sie machen sich Sorgen über die Veränderungen im Alltag. Wir brauchen klare, strenge, angemessene Strategien, um diese Herausforderungen anzugehen. Wenn wir das tun, wird man uns antworten und uns sagen, dass man mit uns einer Meinung ist und es vernünftig ist, eine neue europäische Verfassung zu haben, weil dann der politische Kontext verstanden wird, in dem diese Diskussion über die Verfassung geführt wird. Das ist ein wichtiger Moment der Entscheidung.
Es wäre interessant zu sehen, wie Sie im britischen Unterhaus während der Fragestunde zurechtkämen!
Zum Abschluss möchte ich lediglich sagen, dass die heutige Aussprache im Europäischen Parlament hervorragend war. Es ist mir eine Ehre, dabei gewesen zu sein; ich weiß, dass es viele verschiedene Ansichten gibt, und es wurde an mir und meiner Präsidentschaft einige Kritik geübt. Das gehört zu einer vernünftigen demokratischen Diskussion dazu. Ich möchte Ihnen nur vorschlagen, dass wir, wenn wir diese Diskussion in unseren jeweiligen Ländern wiederholen, uns mit den Menschen ins Benehmen setzen und uns mit ihnen über unsere Überzeugung unterhalten könnten, warum wir Europa in der heutigen Welt für unverzichtbar halten, warum wir die erforderlichen Veränderungen vornehmen möchten, um es in Einklang mit den Prioritäten unserer Menschen zu bringen, Europa genau mit dieser Diskussion helfen können. Indem wir auf die Menschen zugehen, werden wir beweisen, dass wir sie verstehen; in der Überzeugung, dass es uns gelingen wird, auf ihre Belange einzugehen zu können, werden wir das europäische Projekt zu neuem Leben erwecken. Die heutige Aussprache war äußerst beeindruckend. Es ist ein echtes Privileg, dabei sein zu dürfen, und ich danke Ihnen für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.
Ich danke allen, die zu dieser Aussprache beigetragen haben. Eines ist sicher - es fehlt mir nicht an Ratschlägen, und ich möchte mich bei Ihnen bedanken. Wie Sie wissen, kommen heute einige unserer Kollegen auf der Besuchertribüne aus Kuwait, die, wie bereits gesagt wurde, gerade ein Gesetz verabschiedet haben, mit dem Frauen erstmals das aktive und passive Wahlrecht erhalten. Sie sind ein hervorragendes Beispiel dafür, dass Erfolg und Veränderungen möglich sind. Es ist großartig, Sie hier zu haben, Sir.
Darüber hinaus haben viele Redner mich gebeten zu versuchen, einen Konsens innerhalb Europas zu erzielen. In Anbetracht der vielen unterschiedlichen Auffassungen ist das eine ziemlich große Herausforderung. Der vielleicht interessanteste Vorschlag bestand darin, Walisisch zu einer Amtssprache der Europäischen Union zu machen. Das könnte wirklich eine Möglichkeit für einen Konsens sein, aber warten wir es ab.
Eines ist sicher: Unsere heutige Aussprache ist nicht nur hier in diesem Parlament, sondern auch draußen auf sehr großes Interesse gestoßen.
Ich werde versuchen, auf einige der speziellen Äußerungen der führenden Politiker einzugehen, und dann eine kurze Zusammenfassung geben. Was Präsident Barroso angeht, so danke ich ihm sehr für seine freundlichen Worte. Ich pflichte seiner Agenda voll und ganz bei. Wir haben vieles gemeinsam, an dem wir arbeiten können. Das Einzige, was ich zur Überprüfungsklausel für die nächste Finanzielle Vorausschau sagen möchte, ist, dass sie ganz eindeutig sein muss, sie darf nicht mehrdeutig sein. Daran müssen wir gemeinsam arbeiten."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, σας ευχαριστώ για την άριστη πειθαρχία που επιβάλατε.
Όσον αφορά τον κ. Poettering, τον ευχαριστώ για τα ευγενικά του αισθήματα και θα καταβάλουμε κάθε προσπάθεια για να επιτύχουμε συμφωνία σε ορισμένα δύσκολα ζητήματα, ειδικά για τις δημοσιονομικές προοπτικές. Μου θύμισε τις διαπραγματεύσεις του Τζον Μέιτζορ το 1992, επομένως αισθάνθηκα ευγνώμων στον κ. Schulz ο οποίος μας θύμισε ότι κερδίσαμε τόσο εκείνον στις εκλογές του 1997 όσο και τρεις μεταγενέστερους ηγέτες, αλλά αυτό είναι ένα σχόλιο που ίσως ανήκει σε άλλο φόρουμ.
Όσον αφορά το Σύνταγμα, δεν είχα καταλάβει ότι το είπατε εσείς ο ίδιος, κύριε Πρόεδρε, αλλά αν είπατε, όπως αναφέρθηκε στην πορεία της συζήτησης, ότι δεν έφταιγε το κείμενο αλλά το συγκείμενο, τότε συμφωνώ απολύτως με αυτό. Θα έρθει μια στιγμή όπου θα πρέπει να επιστρέψουμε στη συζήτηση των λογικών κανόνων που θα διέπουν τη λειτουργία μας ως Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης των 25 –και ακόμα περισσότερων στο μέλλον– και όχι των 15. Η αλήθεια είναι ότι χρειαζόμαστε ένα νέο πλαίσιο κανόνων για την Ευρώπη και, συνεπώς, το κίνητρο που οδήγησε στο Σύνταγμα ήταν απολύτως σωστό. Ωστόσο, είναι αναγκαίο να επιτύχουμε μια σταθερή πολιτική κατεύθυνση προκειμένου να υποστηριχθεί το Σύνταγμα με τον τρόπο που πρέπει.
Ο κ. Watson με προκάλεσε σχετικά με τη διαφάνεια του Συμβουλίου και, ασφαλώς ως προς τη νομοθέτηση, το επιχείρημά του είναι ισχυρό. Ας το εξετάσουμε αυτό υπό τη δική μας προεδρία.
Χαίρομαι που βλέπω τον κ. Cohn-Bendit μετά από τόσα χρόνια. Πριν από πολύ καιρό εγώ άκουγα τις δικές σας ομιλίες και τώρα εσείς ακούτε τις δικές μου.
Η ιστορία μόνο θα δείξει αν αυτό αποτελεί πρόοδο ή όχι!
Ζητώ συγγνώμη που δεν αφιέρωσα περισσότερο χρόνο της ομιλίας μου στα θέματα του περιβάλλοντος και της αλλαγής του κλίματος. Ελπίζω ότι στη σύνοδο κορυφής του G8 θα υπάρξει τουλάχιστον μια ευκαιρία να κυριαρχήσουν αυτά τα θέματα στη συζήτηση. Θα αποτελέσουν σημαντική πτυχή της προεδρίας μας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
Όσον αφορά αυτό που είπε ο κ. Mote σχετικά με την επιστροφή, επαναλαμβάνω ότι πρέπει να εξετάσουμε όλο αυτό το θέμα στον γύρο. Αυτά τα θέματα πρέπει να επιλυθούν όλα μαζί. Το μόνο που θα επισημάνω είναι ότι χωρίς την επιστροφή θα συνεισφέραμε περίπου 15 φορές περισσότερα από άλλες χώρες ίδιου μεγέθους τα τελευταία 10 χρόνια, και ακόμα και με την επιστροφή, συνεισφέρουμε περισσότερα. Αν αυτή δεν υπήρχε καθόλου, στις προσεχείς δημοσιονομικές προοπτικές θα ήμασταν ο μεγαλύτερος καθαρός συνεισφέρων. Κατανοώ τις ανησυχίες σας και επαναλαμβάνω ότι η Βρετανία θα καταβάλει το δίκαιο μερίδιό της για τη διεύρυνση. Υποστηρίζουμε τη διεύρυνση και θα συνεισφέρουμε για την επίτευξή της. Εντούτοις, το θέμα πρέπει να επιλυθεί με τρόπο που θα είναι ικανοποιητικός για όλους και στο πλαίσιο, ειδικά, του θέματος σχετικά με την αναθεώρηση που συζητήσαμε νωρίτερα.
Ζητώ συγγνώμη που δεν ασχολούμαι με κάθε επιμέρους παρατήρηση. Σε ορισμένες ομιλίες υπήρχε μια αίσθηση ότι εδώ πρόκειται για διαμάχη μεταξύ ηγετών σε προσωπικό επίπεδο ή λόγω διαφωνιών μεταξύ των χωρών. Θέλω να καταστήσω σαφές ότι, σε γενικές γραμμές, πιστεύω πως τα τελευταία οκτώ χρόνια έχω αποδείξει ότι πάντα προσπαθώ να επιτύχω συναίνεση σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο και είναι σημαντικό να το κάνουμε αυτό.
Προφανώς δεν πέτυχα συναίνεση σχετικά με αυτή τη δήλωση!
Η δυσκολία που αντιμετωπίζουμε επί του παρόντος και που θέλω να σας περιγράψω είναι η εξής: γιατί υποστηρίζω τόσο θερμά τη μεταρρυθμιστική ατζέντα; Λόγω του επείγοντος χαρακτήρα της κατάστασης. Δεν συνειδητοποιούμε πλήρως στην Ευρώπη την ανταγωνιστική οικονομική πρόκληση που αντιμετωπίζουμε σήμερα. Είναι σοβαρή και επείγουσα!
Είναι περίεργο πώς συμβαίνουν κάποια πράγματα αλλά μόλις τώρα όλοι ανέφεραν την Κίνα, την Ινδία, κλπ., στις ομιλίες τους. Τώρα, ωστόσο, οι άνθρωποι κατανοούν τη σοβαρότητα αυτής της κατάστασης. Δεν πρόκειται μόνο για την Κίνα και την Ινδία: δείτε χώρες όπως το Βιετνάμ ή η Ταϊλάνδη σήμερα. Οι αλλαγές που κάνουν στις οικονομίες του είναι απίστευτες και δραματικές. Το πρόβλημα είναι ότι στον σημερινό κόσμο πρέπει να προσαρμόζεσαι συνεχώς στη διαδικασία της αλλαγής. Ο φόβος μου είναι ότι αν δεν το κάνουμε, θα συμβούν δύο πράγματα. Πρώτον, το ίδιο το κοινωνικό μοντέλο και η ιδέα της κοινωνικής αλληλεγγύης στην οποία πιστεύουμε, και πιστεύω, τίθεται σε κίνδυνο. Δεύτερον, αν δεν μπορέσουμε να ανταποκριθούμε στην πρόκληση της αλλαγής και αν δεν είμαστε σε θέση να προσαρμοστούμε για να το επιτύχουμε, τότε ως αποτέλεσμα έρχεται η υποστήριξη για τις πολιτικές που περιέγραψε ο κ. Farage εξ ονόματος του κόμματος Ανεξαρτησίας του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου. Οφείλω να του πω ότι διαφωνώ απολύτως με αυτές τις πολιτικές. Δεν θέλω η Βρετανία να βρεθεί στη θέση να ηγηθεί μιας επίθεσης κατά της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Δεν είναι αυτή η πρόθεσή μου σε καμία περίπτωση. Η διαφορά ανάμεσα σε εσάς και σε εμένα είναι πολύ απλή: εσείς βλέπετε τα προβλήματα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης ως ευκαιρία για να διαλύσετε την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, ενώ εγώ τα βλέπω ως αναγκαιότητα για την ανανέωση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Υπάρχει μεγάλη διαφορά μεταξύ αυτών των δύο.
Γνωρίζω πολύ καλά, όπως είπα και στο Κοινοβούλιο στη χώρα μου, ότι η συζήτηση για την αλλαγή και τη μεταρρύθμιση δεν μπορεί να καθοδηγηθεί παρά μόνο από την πλευρά της προοπτικής υπέρ της Ευρώπης. Αυτό είναι κάτι που κατανοώ. Δεν είναι αρκετό κάθε άτομο να διεκδικεί απλώς την Ευρώπη για τον εαυτό του και να λέει ότι αν κάποιος τον αμφισβητεί αυτό σημαίνει ότι είναι κατά της Ευρώπης. Το θέμα, όπως σωστά ανέφεραν πολλοί ομιλητές στη συζήτηση, δεν είναι αν η Ευρώπη πρέπει να αλλάξει ή αν εμείς πιστεύουμε στην Ευρώπη, αλλά πώς πρέπει να αλλάξει η Ευρώπη και σε τι είδους Ευρώπη πιστεύουμε σήμερα. Αυτό είναι το θέμα για εμάς και αυτό είναι το θέμα που πρέπει να χειριστούμε με πραγματική σοβαρότητα και αποφασιστικότητα.
Θέλω να κάνω μία τελευταία παρατήρηση. Εξήγησα γιατί υποστηρίζω το Σύνταγμα. Θα είμαι όμως ειλικρινής μαζί σας. Το μόνο που με ανησύχησε κατά τη διάρκεια όλων των συζητήσεων σχετικά με το Σύνταγμα ήταν το εξής: υπάρχει μια τάση που πρόσεξα κατά τα οκτώ χρόνια της πρωθυπουργίας μου να επιστρέφει η Ευρώπη ορισμένες φορές σε θεσμικά ζητήματα, ενώ στην πραγματικότητα τα ζητήματα αφορούν την κατεύθυνση της πολιτικής. Μπορούμε να συζητάμε ορισμένα από αυτά τα θεσμικά ζητήματα για πολύ καιρό. Ορισμένες φορές παρατηρείται και στους ηγέτες –και δεν απαλλάσσω τον εαυτό μου από την ευθύνη σε αυτό το θέμα– οι οποίοι, όταν υπάρχει ένα πρόβλημα, προτιμούν να κατηγορήσουν ένα ευρωπαϊκό θεσμικό όργανο παρά να αλλάξουν μια ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική. Είναι αλήθεια ότι όλοι έχουμε μια τάση να το κάνουμε αυτό. Αυτό που θέλω να πω είναι ότι, όταν αποφασίζουμε για την κατεύθυνση της Ευρώπης –και αυτό πρέπει να είναι το αντικείμενό μας κατά τους προσεχείς μήνες– όταν συζητάμε για το πώς η Ευρώπη ανταποκρίνεται σε αυτές τις μεγάλες προκλήσεις, πρέπει να εστιάζουμε πάντα στις καθημερινές ανησυχίες του λαού που εκπροσωπούμε. Είστε το άμεσα εκλεγμένο τμήμα των ευρωπαϊκών θεσμικών οργάνων. Ξέρετε πόσο σημαντικό είναι αυτό όταν πηγαίνετε στις κοινότητές σας για να απαντήσετε σε αυτά που απασχολούν τον κόσμο. Τον απασχολούν οι θέσεις απασχόλησης, η ασφάλεια, το έγκλημα και η μετανάστευση. Ανησυχεί για την αλλαγή στην καθημερινή ζωή. Πρέπει να έχουμε σαφείς, σκληρές και ορθές πολιτικές για να αντιμετωπίσουμε αυτές τις προκλήσεις. Αν το κάνουμε, οι πολίτες θα μας απαντήσουν και θα μας πουν ότι συμφωνούν ότι είναι εύλογο να έχουμε ένα νέο Ευρωπαϊκό Σύνταγμα, διότι τότε θα καταλάβουν το πολιτικό πλαίσιο στο οποίο διεξάγεται αυτή η συνταγματική συζήτηση. Αυτή είναι μια μεγάλη στιγμή απόφασης.
Θα είχε ενδιαφέρον να βλέπαμε πώς θα τα πηγαίνατε στη βρετανική Βουλή των Κοινοτήτων κατά την Ώρα των Ερωτήσεων!
Ολοκληρώνοντας, θα ήθελα μόνο να πω ότι η σημερινή συζήτηση στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο ήταν εξαιρετική. Είναι τιμή μου που παραβρέθηκα εδώ, γνωρίζω ότι υπήρξαν πολλές διαφορετικές απόψεις και έγιναν ορισμένα επικριτικά σχόλια για εμένα και την προεδρία μου. Αυτό είναι μέρος μιας υγιούς δημοκρατικής συζήτησης. Θα σας έλεγα μόνο ότι, αν μπορούμε να επαναλάβουμε αυτή τη συζήτηση ο καθένας στη χώρα του και αν βγούμε και συναναστραφούμε με τους πολίτες μας και τους μιλήσουμε για αυτά στα οποία πιστεύουμε, για τους λόγους που πιστεύουμε ότι η Ευρώπη είναι αναγκαία για τον σημερινό κόσμο, για τους λόγους που θέλουμε να κάνουμε τις απαραίτητες αλλαγές για να την ευθυγραμμίσουμε με τις προτεραιότητες των πολιτών, τότε με την ίδια την πράξη του διαλόγου θα έχουμε βοηθήσει την Ευρώπη· με την ίδια την προσέγγιση των πολιτών θα αποδείξουμε τη σημασία μας· με την ίδια την ικανοποίηση ότι είμαστε σε θέση να απαντήσουμε στις ανησυχίες τους, θα ανανεώσουμε το ευρωπαϊκό σχέδιο. Η σημερινή συζήτηση ήταν ιδιαίτερα εντυπωσιακή για μένα. Ήταν αληθινό προνόμιο να βρίσκομαι εδώ και σας ευχαριστώ που με ακούσατε.
Ευχαριστώ όλους όσοι συμμετείχαν σε αυτή τη συζήτηση. Ένα είναι σίγουρο: ότι δεν θα ξεμείνω από συμβουλές και σας ευχαριστώ για αυτό. Όπως ίσως γνωρίζετε, ορισμένοι συνάδελφοί μας στο θεωρείο σήμερα είναι από το Κουβέιτ και μόλις ψήφισαν έναν νόμο, όπως αναφέρθηκε νωρίτερα, ο οποίος παραχωρεί το δικαίωμα ψήφου στις γυναίκες για πρώτη φορά. Αποτελούν εξαιρετικό παράδειγμα του πώς μπορεί να επέλθει πρόοδος και αλλαγή. Χαίρομαι που σας βλέπω εδώ.
Επιπροσθέτως, πολλοί ομιλητές μου ζήτησαν να προσπαθήσω να επιτύχω συναίνεση στην Ευρώπη. Πρέπει να πω ότι, με ένα τόσο ευρύ φάσμα απόψεων, αυτό θα είναι μια πραγματική πρόκληση. Ίσως η πιο ενδιαφέρουσα πρόταση ήταν να κάνουμε τα ουαλικά μία από τις επίσημες γλώσσες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Μπορεί πράγματι να είναι ο κατάλληλος τρόπος για να επιτύχουμε συναίνεση, αλλά θα δούμε.
Ένα είναι βέβαιο: η συζήτησή μας σήμερα έχει προκαλέσει τεράστιο ενδιαφέρον όχι μόνον εδώ στο Κοινοβούλιο αλλά και έξω από αυτό.
Θα προσπαθήσω να απαντήσω σε ορισμένα από τα ειδικά σχόλια που έκαναν οι ηγέτες και στη συνέχεια θα κάνω μια σύντομη σύνοψη. Όσον αφορά τον Πρόεδρο Barroso, τον ευχαριστώ πάρα πολύ για τα καλά του λόγια. Συμφωνώ με την ατζέντα που έχει αναπτύξει. Υπάρχουν πολλά κοινά για τα οποία μπορούμε να εργαστούμε. Η μόνη παρατήρηση που θα ήθελα να κάνω σχετικά με τη ρήτρα αναθεώρησης όσον αφορά το προσεχές δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο είναι ότι πρέπει να είναι πολύ σαφής και καθόλου διφορούμενη. Ας εργαστούμε μαζί για αυτό."@el10
"Señor Presidente, le doy las gracias por la excelente disciplina que ha sabido imponer.
En cuanto al señor Poettering, le doy las gracias por sus amables deseos y haremos todo lo posible por llegar a un acuerdo en algunos de los temas espinosos, sobre todo las perspectivas financieras. Me ha recordado las negociaciones de John Major en 1992, por lo que agradezco al señor Schulz que nos recordara que le derrotamos tanto a él en las elecciones de 1997 como a tres líderes sucesivos de su partido, pero tal vez esta sea una cuestión a plantear en otro foro.
Sobre la Constitución, no me había percatado de que lo hubiera dicho usted, señor Presidente, pero si dijo, como se ha afirmado en el transcurso del debate, que no se ha tratado tanto del texto como del contexto, entonces estoy totalmente de acuerdo con usted. Habrá un día en que tengamos que volver a debatir unas reglas sensatas que rijan nuestro funcionamiento como Unión Europea de 25 –e incluso más en el futuro–, en vez de 15. Lo cierto es que necesitamos un nuevo marco reglamentario para Europa y, en consecuencia, el impulso que dio lugar a la Constitución era totalmente correcto. Sin embargo, es necesario fijar el rumbo político para que la Constitución reciba el apoyo que se merece.
El señor Watson ha insistido en la transparencia del Consejo y, sin duda con respecto a la labor legislativa, hay razones sobradas que la avalan. Estudiémoslo durante nuestra Presidencia.
Es una alegría ver al señor Cohn-Bendit al cabo de todos estos años. Hace mucho tiempo yo solía escuchar sus discursos, y ahora es usted quien escucha los míos.
Solo la historia podrá juzgar si esto es progreso o no.
Pido perdón por no dedicar más tiempo en mi intervención a los temas del medio ambiente y el cambio climático. Espero que durante la cumbre del G8 tengamos al menos una oportunidad de que estos temas ocupen el centro del debate. Serán un aspecto importante de nuestra Presidencia de la Unión Europea.
En relación a lo que ha dicho el señor Mote acerca del cheque, repito que tenemos que estudiar todo en la ronda de negociaciones. Todos estos asuntos hay que resolverlos de forma conjunta. Lo único que quisiera señalar es que, sin el reembolso habríamos estado contribuyendo 15 veces más que países de tamaño similar durante los últimos 10 años, y con todo estamos contribuyendo más que ellos. Si no existiera, durante las próximas perspectivas financieras seríamos el mayor contribuyente neto. Entiendo su preocupación y repito que Gran Bretaña pagará la parte que le corresponde de la ampliación. Apoyamos la ampliación y contribuiremos a ella. Sin embargo, el tema ha de resolverse de forma satisfactoria para todo el mundo y en el contexto, concretamente, del criterio sobre la revisión que hemos debatido anteriormente.
Pido disculpas por no abordar todos y cada uno de los puntos concretos. En algunas intervenciones se traslucía una sensación de que aquí se trata simplemente de una disputa entre dirigentes derivada de la personalidad o de los desacuerdos entre países. Quiero dejar claro que, en términos generales, pienso que a lo largo de los últimos ocho años he demostrado que siempre he tratado de alcanzar un consenso a escala europea y que es importante que lo hagamos.
Está claro que no he logrado que haya consenso en torno a esta afirmación.
La dificultad a que nos enfrentamos en estos momentos y que quiero describirles es la siguiente: ¿por insisto tanto en el programa de reforma? Lo hago por sentido de urgencia. En Europa no somos totalmente conscientes del desafío económico competitivo a que nos enfrentamos hoy. Es grave y es urgente.
Es curioso cómo se producen los hechos, pero justo ahora todo el mundo ha hablado de China, la India, etc. en sus intervenciones. Ahora, sin embargo, las personas perciben la gravedad de esta situación. No se trata solo de China y la India: pensemos en países como Vietnam o Tailandia hoy. Los cambios que están introduciendo en sus economías son asombrosos y espectaculares. El problema estriba en que, en el mundo actual, uno tiene que adaptarse continuamente a ese proceso de cambio. Me preocupa que si no lo hacemos, van a ocurrir dos cosas. Primero, se halla en peligro el propio modelo social y la idea de solidaridad social en la que creemos, y en la que creo. Segundo, si no podemos superar el reto del cambio y no somos capaces de adaptarnos a ello, entonces sobreviene el apoyo a las políticas que el señor Farage ha descrito en representación del Partido por la Independencia del Reino Unido. He de decirle que estoy en total desacuerdo con esas políticas. No quiero que Gran Bretaña encabece una denuncia contra la Unión Europea. Esa no es de ningún modo mi intención. La diferencia entre usted y yo es muy sencilla: usted ve los problemas de la Unión Europea como una ocasión para desguazar la Unión Europea, yo los veo como la necesidad para revitalizarla. Hay una gran diferencia entre ambos.
Soy muy consciente, como ya he dicho en mi propio Parlamento y en mi país, que este debate sobre el cambio y la reforma no se puede conducir de ninguna otra manera que desde una perspectiva proeuropea. Eso lo entiendo. No basta con que uno simplemente reclame Europa para sí mismo y afirme que, si el otro contradice lo que yo sostengo, eso significa que en cierta forma el otro está en contra de Europa. La cuestión, tal como ha sido planteada acertadamente por varios oradores durante el debate, no estriba en si Europa debe cambiar o si nosotros creemos en Europa, sino en cómo debe cambiar Europa y en qué tipo de Europa creemos nosotros ahora. Esa es la cuestión para nosotros y ese es el asunto que hemos de abordar con un enfoque verdaderamente serio.
Quiero exponer una última consideración. He dicho por qué apoyo la Constitución. Pero seré franco con ustedes. El aspecto que me preocupaba en el curso de todos los debates sobre la Constitución era el siguiente: a veces existe en Europa una tendencia, que he detectado a lo largo de mis ocho años como Primer Ministro, a centrarse en cuestiones institucionales cuando en realidad la cuestión es de orientación política. Podemos debatir algunas de estas cuestiones institucionales durante mucho tiempo. A veces se observa en dirigentes –y no declino mi parte de responsabilidad al respecto– que, cuando se presenta un problema, tratan de echar la culpa a una institución europea antes que modificar una política europea. Es cierto que todos mostramos cierta tendencia a hacerlo. Mi planteamiento es que, cuando decidamos la orientación de Europa –y de eso tendremos que ocuparnos en los próximos meses–, cuando celebremos el debate sobre la forma en que Europa debe afrontar estos enormes retos, siempre deberemos tener muy presentes las preocupaciones diarias de las personas que representamos. Sus Señorías son el órgano elegido directamente de las instituciones europeas. Ustedes saben lo importante que es que vayan a sus comunidades para responder a las cuestiones que allí se plantean. Hablan de puestos de trabajo, de seguridad, de delincuencia y de inmigración. Hay inquietud por los cambios en sus vidas cotidianas. Necesitamos políticas claras, rotundas y adecuadas para hacer frente a estos retos. En este caso, responderán y nos dirán que están de acuerdo en que resulta conveniente contar con una nueva Constitución Europea, ya que entonces comprenderán el contexto político en el que se está celebrando el debate constitucional. Este es un gran momento decisivo.
Sería interesante verle actuar en la Cámara de los Comunes británica durante el turno de preguntas.
Para terminar, solo quiero decir que el debate de hoy en el Parlamento Europeo ha sido excelente. Es para mí un honor haber asistido al mismo, soy consciente de que se han expresado muchas opiniones dispares y de que se han vertido algunos juicios críticos sobre mi persona y mi Presidencia. Eso forma parte de un debate democrático saludable. Simplemente les planteo que si pudiéramos reproducir este debate en nuestros respectivos países y salir a dialogar con los ciudadanos y hablarles de nuestras convicciones, de por qué pensamos que Europa es necesaria para el mundo de hoy, por qué queremos realizar los cambios necesarios para sintonizarla con las prioridades de las personas, entonces el mismo debate ya ayudará a Europa; por el mero hecho de dirigirnos a las personas demostraremos nuestra relevancia; por la simple satisfacción de estar en condiciones de responder a sus preocupaciones, revitalizaremos el proyecto europeo. El debate de hoy me ha impresionado mucho. Constituye un auténtico privilegio haber asistido a él, y les doy las gracias por haberme escuchado.
Quiero dar las gracias a todos cuantos han contribuido a este debate. Un cosa, desde luego, es que no me voy falto de consejos, que les agradezco. Como saben, algunos de los hoy presentes en la tribuna de invitados proceden de Kuwait, donde acaban de aprobar una ley, como se ha informado antes, que por primera vez otorga el voto a las mujeres. Ellos son un ejemplo formidable de cómo puede venir el progreso y el cambio. Es una alegría verle aquí, señor.
Además, muchos oradores me han pedido que intente conseguir un consenso en toda Europa. Hay que decir, dada la gran variedad de opiniones, que eso constituye todo un reto. Quizá la propuesta más interesante sea que convirtamos el galés en una de las lenguas oficiales de la Unión Europea. De hecho podría ser el camino para alcanzar un consenso, pero ya veremos.
Una cosa es cierta: nuestro debate de hoy ha suscitado un enorme interés, no solo aquí en este Parlamento, sino también fuera.
Trataré de responder a algunos de los comentarios concretos formulados por los jefes de los Grupos parlamentarios, y luego haré un breve resumen. Con respecto al Presidente Barroso, le agradezco mucho sus amables palabras. Estoy de acuerdo con el programa que ha expuesto. Tenemos muchas cosas en común sobre las que podemos trabajar. El único comentario que quiero hacer acerca de la cláusula de revisión con respecto a las próximas perspectivas financieras es que tiene que quedar muy clara, no puede ser ambigua. Trabajemos juntos en ese tema."@es20
"Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, kiitos tuosta erinomaisesta kurinpidosta.
Jäsen Poetteringia kiitän hyväntahtoisista mielipiteistä, ja totean hänelle, että teemme parhaamme, jotta tietyistä vaikeista asioista, erityisesti rahoitusnäkymistä, päästään yksimielisyyteen. Jäsen Poettering muistutti minua John Majorin vuonna 1992 käymistä neuvotteluista, ja olenkin melko kiitollinen, että jäsen Schulz muistutti meitä siitä, että voitimme hänet vuoden 1997 vaaleissa ja kolme hänen seuraajaansa. Tästä kannattanee puhua jossakin muualla.
Arvoisa puheenjohtaja, en huomannut, jos sanoitte, kuten keskustelun aikana teidän todettiin sanoneen, että perustuslain osalta kyse ei ollut tekstistä vaan kontekstista, ja olen täysin samaa mieltä asiasta. Vielä koittaa aika, jolloin joudumme jälleen keskustelemaan siitä, mikä on järkevä tapa hallita toimintaamme 15 jäsenvaltion sijasta 25 jäsenvaltion ja tulevaisuudessa yhä useamman jäsenvaltion Euroopan unionina. Todellisuudessa unioni tarvitsee uudet säännöt, ja siksi sysäys, joka käynnisti perustuslain laatimisen, oli täysin oikea. Poliittisen johdon on oltava vahvaa, jotta perustuslaille saadaan sen ansaitsema kannatus.
Jäsen Watson asetti minulle haasteeksi neuvoston avoimuuden, ja lainsäädännön osalta se onkin todella perusteltua. Asiaa harkitaan puheenjohtajakautemme aikana.
On mukava nähdä jäsen Cohn-Benditia kaikkien näiden vuosien jälkeen. Kauan sitten minä kuuntelin teidän puheitanne, ja nyt te kuuntelette minun puhettani.
Vain historia näyttää, onko tämä edistystä vai ei!
Pyydän anteeksi, etten puhu enempää ympäristö- ja ilmastonmuutosasioista. Toivon, että G8-kokouksessa näiden aiheiden käsittelylle tulee tilaisuus. Ne ovat merkittävässä asemassa Euroopan unionin puheenjohtajakaudellamme.
Jäsen Mote puhui maksualennuksesta, ja siltä osin toistan, että asiaa on tarkasteltava kokonaisuutena. Ratkaisussa on otettava huomioon kaikki nämä asiat. Haluan vain huomauttaa, että ilman maksualennusta meidän osuutemme olisi viimeisten 10 vuoden aikana ollut 15-kertainen muihin samansuuruisiin valtioihin verrattuna, ja vaikka maksualennus toteutuikin, osuutemme on muita suurempi. Jos maksualennusta ei olisi, olisimme seuraavissa ranoitusnäkymissä suurin nettomaksaja. Ymmärrän huolenne ja toistan, että Iso-Britannia maksaa kyllä tasapuolisesti laajentumisen kustannuksia. Kannatamme laajentumista ja pyrimme edistämään sitä. Asia on kuitenkin ratkaistava niin, että kaikki ovat tyytyväisiä ja että erityisesti tarkistus, josta aiemmin keskustelimme, otetaan huomioon.
Olen pahoillani siitä, etten voi käsitellä jokaista yksittäistä asiaa. Joistakin puheenvuoroista on saanut sen kuvan, että kyseessä on vain johtajien persoonallisuuksista tai maiden erimielisyyksistä johtuva kiista. Haluan tehdä yleisesti selväksi, että olen mielestäni viimeisten kahdeksan vuoden aikana osoittanut aina pyrkiväni Euroopan-laajuiseen yksimielisyyteen, ja se on meille tärkeä tavoite.
Kommenttini ei selvästikään saanut aikaan yksimielisyyttä!
Haluan vain kuvailla, millainen ongelma meillä on edessämme: miksi suhtaudun niin intohimoisesti uudistuspakettiin? Koska asialla on kiire. Euroopassa ei oikein ymmärretä, millaisen haasteen taloudellinen kilpailu meille nykyään asettaa. Tuo haaste on vaikea ja siihen on reagoitava nopeasti!
Asiat etenevät merkillisesti, mutta kaikki ovat juuri maininneet puheissaan Kiinan, Intian jne. Ihmiset näyttävät nyt kuitenkin ymmärtävän tilanteen vakavuuden. Kyse ei ole vain Kiinasta ja Intiasta; mietitään vaikka tämän päivän Vietnamia ja Thaimaata. Ne tekevät talouksiinsa muutoksia, jotka ovat ällistyttäviä ja todella mullistavia. Nykypäivän maailmassa ongelmana on se, että on jatkuvasti mukauduttava tuohon muutosprosessiin. Minua huolestuttaa se, että, jos näin ei tehdä, tapahtuu kaksi asiaa. Ensiksi se yhteiskuntamalli ja sosiaalisen yhteisvastuullisuuden ajatus, johon me, ja myös minä, uskomme, on uhattuna. Toiseksi, jos emme selviä muutoksen tuomasta haasteesta emmekä sopeudu muutokseen, seurauksena on, että sellaisten menettelytapojen suosio lisääntyy, joita jäsen Farage kuvaili Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan itsenäisyyspuolueen noudattavan. Hänelle minun on todettava, että olen täysin eri mieltä noista menettelytavoista. En halua, että Iso-Britannia nostaa syytteen Euroopan unionia vastaan. Se ei todellakaan ole tarkoitukseni. Minun ja jäsenen välinen ero on selvä: hänen mielestään Euroopan unionin ongelmat tarkoittavat mahdollisuutta hajottaa Euroopan unioni ja minä näen ne tarpeena vahvistaa Euroopan unionia. Näiden kahden ajatuksen välillä on suuri ero.
Kuten totesin kotimaani parlamentissa, muutoksesta ja uudistuksista voidaan keskustella ainoastaan, jos unioniin suhtaudutaan myönteisesti. Tämän minä kyllä ymmärrän. Ei riitä, että jokainen toteaa pitävänsä Eurooppaa omanaan ja sanoo, että mikäli hänen kanssaan ollaan eri mieltä, se ikään kuin tarkoittaisi Euroopan vastustamista. Kuten monet puhujat keskustelun aikana aivan oikein huomauttivat, kysymys ei ole siitä, pitäisikö Eurooppaa muuttaa tai uskommeko Eurooppaan, vaan siitä, kuinka Eurooppaa pitäisi muuttaa ja millaiseen Eurooppaan me nykyään uskomme. Tähän kysymykseen meidän on vastattava ja tätä asiaa meidän on käsiteltävä vakavasti.
Esitän vielä yhden kommentin. Olen todennut kannattavani perustuslakia. Totta puhuakseni perustuslakia koskevissa keskusteluissa on ollut yksi asia, joka on huolestuttanut koko ajan. Niiden kahdeksan vuoden aikana, kun olen toiminut pääministerinä, olen huomannut, että Euroopassa on toisinaan tapana palata toimielinkysymyksiin, vaikka kyse on tosiasiassa poliittisista päämääristä. Joistakin näistä toimielinkysymyksistä saatetaan kiistellä pitkäänkin. Joskus myös johtajat – enkä kiistä olevani yksi heistä – syyttävät ongelmista mieluummin yhteisön toimielintä kuin ryhtyvät muuttamaan yhteisön politiikkaa. Meillä kaikilla on tosiaan taipumus tehdä näin. Tarkoituksenani on sanoa, että kun päätämme Euroopan suunnasta – ja tämä on meidän tehtävämme tulevina kuukausina – kun neuvottelemme siitä, kuinka Eurooppa selviytyy edessään olevista suurista haasteista, meidän on aina muistettava edustamiemme kansalaisten jokapäiväiset huolenaiheet. Te muodostatte suoraan kansalaisten valitseman yhteisön toimielimen. Tiedätte, kuinka tärkeää kansalaisille on, että vierailette kansalaistenne keskuudessa ja sanotte mielipiteenne siitä, mistä he keskustelevat. Siellä puhutaan työpaikoista, turvallisuudesta, rikollisuudesta ja maahanmuutosta. He ovat huolissaan jokapäiväisen elämän muuttumisesta. Meillä on oltava selkeät, tiukat menettelytavat, joilla näihin haasteisiin vastataan. Jos meillä on tällaiset menettelytavat, kansalaiset vastaavat meille ja ovat yhtä mieltä siitä, että on järkevää laatia Euroopalle uusi perustuslaki, koska tällöin he ymmärtävät, millaisessa poliittisessa tilanteessa perustuslakikeskustelua käydään. Nyt ollaan tekemässä tärkeää päätöstä.
Olisi mielenkiintoista nähdä, kuinka selviäisitte Britannian parlamentin kyselytunnilla!
Lopuksi voin vain todeta, että tämänpäiväinen keskustelu Euroopan parlamentissa on ollut erinomainen. Olen kiitollinen, että sain osallistua siihen. Keskustelussa tuli esille useita eri kantoja, ja minusta ja puheenjohtajakaudestani esitettiin joitakin kriittisiä arvioita. Tämä on osa tervettä demokraattista keskustelua. Ehdottaisin vielä teille, että tämä keskustelu toistettaisiin kunkin kotimaassa ja keskustelisimme kansalaisten kanssa siitä, mihin uskomme, miksi Eurooppa on mielestämme välttämätön nykymaailmalle ja miksi haluamme tehdä muutokset, jotka ovat välttämättömiä, jotta Eurooppa saadaan kansalaisten ensisijaisten tavoitteiden mukaiseksi. Juuri keskustelemalla autamme Eurooppa, juuri ottamalla yhteyden kansalaisiin osoitamme merkityksemme, juuri siitä ilosta, että pystymme vastaamaan kansalaisten huolenaiheisiin, annamme uutta pontta Euroopan hankkeelle. Tämänpäiväinen keskustelu on tehnyt minuun suuren vaikutuksen. Olen aidosti kiitollinen, että olen saanut olla mukana, ja kiitän teitä siitä, että kuuntelitte minua.
Kiitän kaikkia keskusteluun osallistuneita. Ainakin on varmaa, että olen saanut riittävästi neuvoja, ja kiitän teitä niistä. Saatattekin tietää, että lehterillä on tänään kollegojamme Kuwaitista, ja kuten jo edellä mainittiin, he ovat juuri hyväksyneet lain, jolla annetaan Kuwaitin naisille ensimmäistä kertaa äänioikeus. He ovat näyttäneet erinomaista esimerkkiä siitä, kuinka edistystä ja muutosta saadaan aikaan. Mukava nähdä teitä täällä.
Monet puhujat ovat pyytäneet minulta, että yrittäisin tehdä unionista yksimielisen. Mielipiteitä on monia, joten on todettava, että siinä on melkoisesti haastetta. Ehdotuksista kiinnostavin oli ehkä se, että walesin kielestä tehdään yksi Euroopan unionin virallisista kielistä. Näin voitaisiin todella saavuttaa yksimielisyyttä, mutta katsotaan nyt.
Yksi asia on varma: tämänpäiväinen keskustelumme on herättänyt valtavasti kiinnostusta sekä täällä parlamentissa että muuallakin maailmassa.
Yritän vastata joihinkin puheenjohtajien täsmällisiin kommentteihin ja tehdä lopuksi lyhyen yhteenvedon. Komission puheenjohtajaa Barrosoa kiitän lämpimästi hänen ystävällisistä sanoistaan. Hyväksyn hänen laatimansa esityslistan. Siinä on paljon yhteisiä asioita, joita voimme työstää. Ainoa huomautukseni seuraavia rahoitusnäkymiä koskevasta tarkistuslausekkeesta on se, että lausekkeen on oltava todella selkeä eikä millään tavoin monitulkintainen. Pyrkikäämme yhdessä tähän."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie d’avoir si bien rétabli la discipline.
Pour ce qui est de M. Poettering, je le remercie pour la gentillesse de son intervention. Nous ferons de notre mieux pour parvenir à un accord sur certaines des questions difficiles, en particulier en ce qui concerne les perspectives financières. Il m’a rappelé les négociations menées par John Major en 1992 et je suis donc plutôt reconnaissant à M. Schulz de nous avoir rappelé que nous avons battu M. Major aux élections de 1997, ainsi que trois autres dirigeants, mais l’endroit est peut-être mal choisi pour parler de cela.
Sur la constitution, je n’avais pas apprécié que vous fussiez l’auteur de cette réflexion, Monsieur le Président, mais si vous avez dit, comme on l’a rapporté au cours du débat, qu’il ne s’agissait pas du texte mais du contexte, là je suis entièrement d’accord avec vous. Le temps viendra où nous devrons relancer le débat sur l’adoption de règles raisonnables pour gouverner notre mode de fonctionnement à 25 - et même plus à l’avenir - plutôt qu’à 15. La vérité est que nous avons besoin d’un nouveau cadre réglementaire pour l’Europe, en conséquence de quoi l’impulsion qui a donné vie à la Constitution était parfaitement correcte. Il est toutefois nécessaire que l’orientation politique soit ferme de sorte que la constitution reçoive le soutien qu’elle mérite.
M. Watson m’a interpellé sur la transparence du Conseil et, du point de vue de la législation, il y a certainement beaucoup à dire à ce sujet. Examinons cela pendant notre présidence.
Il est bon de voir M. Cohn-Bendit après toutes ces années. Il y a longtemps, j’écoutais vos discours, et maintenant c’est vous qui écoutez les miens.
Seule l’histoire nous dira s’il s’agit d’un progrès ou non!
Je m’excuse de ne pas avoir consacré plus de temps aux questions de l’environnement et du changement climatique dans mon discours. J’espère qu’au sommet du G8, elles auront au moins une chance de dominer le débat. Elles seront un aspect important du programme de notre présidence de l’Union européenne.
En ce qui concerne ce que M. Mote a dit au sujet du rabais, je répète que nous devons examiner tout cela dans le cycle de négociations. Toutes ces questions doivent être réglées ensemble. La seule chose que je ferais remarquer est que sans ce rabais, notre contribution aurait été environ 15 fois supérieure à celle d’autres pays de taille similaire au cours des 10 dernières années, et que même avec le rabais, nous contribuons plus qu’eux. S’il n’existait pas du tout, nous serions les premiers contributeurs nets des prochaines perspectives financières. Je comprends votre inquiétude et répète que la Grande-Bretagne paiera sa part de l’élargissement. Nous soutenons l’élargissement et nous y apporterons notre contribution. Mais la question doit trouver une issue satisfaisante pour tout le monde et en particulier être réglée dans le contexte de la problématique de la clause de réexamen dont nous avons débattu tout à l’heure.
Je suis désolé de ne pas revenir sur chaque élément. Certaines interventions ont laissé entendre qu’il s’agissait juste d’un différend entre dirigeants dû à un problème de personnalité ou de désaccords entre pays. Je tiens à préciser que, d’un point de vue général, je pense avoir montré, au cours des huit dernières années, que j’ai toujours essayé d’atteindre un consensus au niveau européen, et il est important que nous le fassions.
Visiblement, je n’ai pas recueilli de consensus sur cette déclaration!
La difficulté que nous rencontrons en ce moment et que je vais vous expliquer est la suivante: comment se fait-il que le programme de réformes soulève autant de passion chez moi? C’est à cause d’un sentiment d’urgence. En Europe, nous ne réalisons pas vraiment le défi économique concurrentiel auquel nous devons faire face aujourd’hui. C’est important et c’est urgent!
La manière dont les choses se passent est étrange, mais dans toutes les interventions il a été question de la Chine, de l’Inde, etc. Aujourd’hui, toutefois, les gens comprennent la gravité de la situation. Il ne s’agit pas uniquement de la Chine et de l’Inde: prenez des pays comme le Viêt-Nam ou la Thaïlande aujourd’hui. Les changements qu’ils apportent à leur économie sont stupéfiants et spectaculaires. Le problème est que, dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, il faut s’adapter constamment à ces changements. Si nous ne le faisons pas, je crains une double conséquence: premièrement, le modèle social même et l’idée de la solidarité sociale à laquelle nous croyons, vous et moi, sera mis en péril; deuxièmement, si nous ne pouvons pas relever le défi du changement et que nous sommes incapables de nous adapter pour y faire face, ce sont les actions politiques que M. Farage a décrites brièvement au nom du parti pour l’indépendance du Royaume-Uni qui recevront un soutien. Je dois lui dire que je m’oppose totalement à ce genre d’actions. Je ne veux pas que la Grande-Bretagne soit en position de mener une attaque contre l’Union européenne. Je n’ai en pas la moindre intention. La différence entre vous et moi est très simple: vous considérez les problèmes de l’Union européenne comme une possibilité de provoquer le naufrage de l’Union européenne, je les considère comme le signe de la nécessité de revigorer l’Union européenne. C’est la grande différence entre nous.
Je sais parfaitement, ainsi que je l’ai déclaré dans mon propre parlement et dans mon propre pays, que ce débat sur le changement et la réforme ne peut être mené en dehors d’une perspective pro-européenne. Je le comprends. Il ne suffit pas que chacun défende son Europe et dise que quiconque s’oppose à lui est en quelque sorte contre l’Europe. Comme l’ont dit à juste titre plusieurs orateurs, la question n’est pas de savoir si l’Europe doit changer ou si nous croyons en l’Europe, mais comment l’Europe doit changer et en quelle Europe nous croyons aujourd’hui. C’est la question qui se pose à nous et c’est la question à laquelle nous devons répondre sérieusement et en toute sincérité.
J’aimerais faire une dernière remarque. J’ai dit pourquoi je soutenais la Constitution. Mais je serai honnête avec vous. L’élément qui m’a contrarié au cours des débats sur la Constitution était celui-ci: depuis huit ans que je suis Premier ministre, j’ai remarqué que l’Europe a parfois tendance à revenir sur les questions institutionnelles alors que les véritables questions portent sur la direction politique. Nous pouvons débattre très longtemps de ces questions institutionnelles. Les dirigeants non plus ne sont pas épargnés par cette tendance - et je ne nie pas ma responsabilité à cet égard - blâmant en cas de problème une institution européenne au lieu de redéfinir la politique européenne. Il est vrai que nous avons tous tendance à agir de cette manière. Je pense que lorsque nous décidons quelle direction donner à l’Europe - et c’est ce qu’il faudra faire au cours des prochains mois -, lorsque nous tenons un débat sur la manière dont l’Europe s’occupe de ces ambitieux défis, nous devons toujours garder à l’esprit les préoccupations quotidiennes des personnes que nous représentons. Vous êtes la partie des institutions européennes élue au suffrage universel direct. Vous savez à quel point il est important, lorsque vous vous rendez dans vos circonscriptions, de répondre aux questions qui préoccupent vos électeurs. Ils vous parlent d’emplois, de sécurité, de criminalité et d’immigration. Ils s’inquiètent des changements qu’ils perçoivent dans leur vie quotidienne. Nos politiques doivent être claires, solides et adéquates pour faire face à ces défis. Dans ce cas, ils seront réceptifs et ils nous diront qu’il est raisonnable d’avoir une nouvelle Constitution européenne, parce qu’ils comprendront le contexte politique du débat constitutionnel. C’est un moment important de décision.
Il serait intéressant de voir comment vous vous en sortiriez à la Chambre des communes à l’heure des questions!
En conclusion, je qualifierais ni plus ni moins d’excellent le débat qui a eu lieu aujourd’hui au Parlement européen. J’ai eu l’honneur d’y avoir pris part de bout en bout. Je sais que de nombreux points de vue différents ont été exposés et que certaines critiques ont été formulées à mon égard et à l’égard de ma présidence. Cela fait partie d’un débat démocratique sain. Je vous suggérerais d’essayer de reproduire ce même débat dans votre pays, de sortir et d’engager la conversation avec vos électeurs, de leur parler de nos convictions, de leur dire pourquoi nous pensons que l’Europe est nécessaire dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, de leur expliquer pourquoi nous voulons effectuer les changements nécessaires pour l’aligner sur leurs priorités, car c’est en débattant que nous aiderons l’Europe; c’est en aidant vraiment les gens que nous montrerons notre pertinence; c’est en nous montrant satisfaits d’être en mesure de répondre à leurs préoccupations que nous insufflerons un nouvel élan au projet européen. J’ai trouvé le débat d’aujourd’hui extrêmement impressionnant. Cela fut pour moi un véritable privilège d’y avoir assisté et je vous remercie de m’avoir écouté.
Je remercie toutes les personnes qui ont contribué à ce débat. Une chose est sûre, je n’ai pas manqué de conseils, et je vous en remercie. Comme vous le savez peut-être, certains de nos collègues présents dans la tribune officielle viennent du Koweït et, on l’a dit tout à l’heure, le pays vient d’adopter une loi accordant pour la première fois le droit de vote aux femmes. C’est un excellent exemple de la manière dont le progrès et le changement peuvent survenir. Cela fait plaisir de vous voir ici, Monsieur.
En outre, de nombreux orateurs m’ont demandé d’essayer d’atteindre un consensus à travers l’Europe. Je dois dire que, compte tenu de l’éventail des points de vue, ce ne sera pas une mince affaire. La suggestion la plus intéressante qui a été faite est peut-être de faire du gallois une des langues officielles de l’Union européenne. Ce pourrait en effet être le moyen d’atteindre un consensus, mais nous verrons.
Une chose est sûre: notre débat d’aujourd’hui a suscité un énorme intérêt, non seulement ici dans cette Assemblée, mais également en dehors.
J’essaierai de répondre à certains des commentaires spécifiques formulés par les dirigeants, puis je ferai un bref résumé. En ce qui concerne le président Barroso, je le remercie pour son amabilité. Je suis d’accord avec l’ordre du jour politique qu’il a présenté. Il y a beaucoup de choses sur lesquelles nous pouvons travailler en commun. La seule remarque que je ferais sur la clause de réexamen eu égard aux prochaines perspectives financières est qu’elle doit être très claire, elle ne doit pas être ambiguë. Travaillons-y ensemble."@fr8
"Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, la ringrazio per la grande disciplina che ha imposto.
Ringrazio l’onorevole Poettering per la sua benevolenza; faremo del nostro meglio per raggiungere l’accordo su alcune questioni spinose, in particolare le prospettive finanziarie. Mi ha ricordato i negoziati di John Major nel 1992, e sono quindi grato all’onorevole Schulz per averci ricordato che abbiamo sconfitto sia lui nelle elezioni del 1997 sia tre
successivi, ma forse è un’osservazione da fare in altra sede.
Riguardo alla Costituzione, non avevo gradito che lo avesse affermato lei stesso, signor Presidente, ma se ha detto, come è stato riferito nel corso della discussione, che non si è trattato del testo ma del contesto, allora sono pienamente d’accordo. A un certo punto dovremo riprendere la discussione di norme ragionevoli per disciplinare il funzionamento dell’Unione europea dei Venticinque – e di un numero ancora maggiore di paesi in futuro – rispetto a quella dei Quindici. La verità è che abbiamo bisogno di un nuovo quadro normativo per l’Europa e, di conseguenza, l’impulso che ha dato origine alla Costituzione era del tutto corretto. E’ tuttavia necessario adottare una direzione politica stabile per far sì che la Costituzione ottenga il sostegno che merita.
L’onorevole Watson mi ha lanciato una sfida sulla trasparenza del Consiglio e, di sicuro riguardo alla legiferazione, esistono validi argomenti a favore. Esamineremo la questione durante la nostra Presidenza.
E’ un piacere rivedere l’onorevole Cohn-Bendit dopo tutti questi anni. Molto tempo fa ero abituato ad ascoltare i suoi discorsi, ora lei ascolta i miei.
Solo la storia dirà se questo è o non è un progresso!
Mi scuso per non aver dedicato più tempo alle questioni ambientali e al cambiamento climatico nel mio intervento. Mi auguro che al Vertice del G8 avremo almeno una possibilità di far sì che tali questioni dominino la discussione. Saranno un elemento fondamentale della nostra Presidenza dell’Unione europea.
Riguardo a ciò che ha affermato l’onorevole Mote sulla riduzione, ripeto che dobbiamo esaminare l’intera questione nella sua globalità. Queste questioni devono essere risolte tutte insieme. Vorrei solo rilevare che senza la riduzione avremmo versato contributi circa 15 volte superiori a quelli di paesi di dimensioni analoghe nel corso degli ultimi 10 anni e, persino con la riduzione, il nostro contributo è maggiore. Se non fosse mai esistita, nelle prossime prospettive finanziarie saremmo il maggiore contributore netto. Comprendo le vostre preoccupazioni e ribadisco che la Gran Bretagna pagherà la sua giusta quota dell’allargamento. Sosteniamo l’allargamento e faremo la nostra parte. Tuttavia, dobbiamo trovare una soluzione soddisfacente per tutti, in particolare nel contesto della questione della revisione di cui si parlava poc’anzi.
Mi scuso di non poter affrontare ogni singolo aspetto. In alcuni interventi è emersa la sensazione che si tratti solo di un diverbio tra
basato su personalismi o disaccordi tra paesi. Vorrei chiarire che, in generale, ritengo di aver dimostrato negli ultimi otto anni che ho sempre cercato di raggiungere il consenso a livello europeo ed è importante farlo.
Ovviamente non ho ottenuto consenso su questa affermazione!
La difficoltà che abbiamo al momento, che vorrei solo descrivervi, è: perché parlo con tanta passione del programma di riforma? Per un senso di urgenza. In Europa non ci rendiamo bene conto della sfida concorrenziale ed economica cui dobbiamo rispondere. E’ seria ed è urgente!
E’ strano il modo in cui succedono le cose, ma tutti hanno menzionato la Cina, l’India, eccetera, nei loro interventi. Ora, tuttavia, le persone comprendono la gravità della situazione. Non si tratta solo della Cina e dell’India: prendete paesi come il Vietnam o la Thailandia. I cambiamenti che stanno introducendo nelle loro economie sono formidabili e sensazionali. Il problema è che al mondo d’oggi bisogna adattarsi continuamente a tale processo di cambiamento. La mia preoccupazione è che, se non lo faremo, si verificheranno due cose. In primo luogo, il modello sociale e l’idea stessa di solidarietà sociale in cui noi, ed io, crediamo saranno messi a repentaglio. In secondo luogo, se non saremo in grado di gestire la sfida del cambiamento e non sapremo adattarci a tal fine, il risultato sarà la nascita di sostegno per le politiche descritte dall’onorevole Farage a nome del partito indipendente del Regno Unito. Devo dire all’onorevole Farage che sono totalmente contrario a tali politiche. Non voglio che la Gran Bretagna sia in posizione di guidare la carica contro l’Unione europea. Questa non è affatto la mia intenzione. La differenza tra lei e me è molto semplice: lei vede i problemi dell’Unione europea come un’opportunità per farla naufragare, io li vedo come una necessità per rafforzarla. Esiste una grande differenza tra i due punti di vista.
So bene, come ho affermato in seno al parlamento del mio paese, che questa discussione sul cambiamento e la riforma non può essere condotta se non in una prospettiva europeista. Lo capisco. Non è sufficiente limitarsi a rivendicare l’Europa per sé e dichiarare che mettere in discussione ciò che si afferma equivale in qualche modo ad essere contro l’Europa. Come hanno giustamente osservato diversi oratori nella discussione, il punto non è se l’Europa debba cambiare o se si creda nell’Europa, ma in quale modo l’Europa debba cambiare e in quale Europa crediamo oggi. Questo è l’interrogativo da porsi e questa è la questione da affrontare con vera serietà di intenti.
Vorrei fare un’ultima osservazione. Ho spiegato perché sostengo la Costituzione, ma sarò sincero con voi. Una cosa che mi ha preoccupato nel corso di tutte le discussioni sulla Costituzione è questa: vi è una tendenza, che ho notato durante gli otto anni in cui ho esercitato la funzione di Primo Ministro, che a volte induce l’Europa a riesaminare gli aspetti istituzionali quando i problemi in realtà riguardano la direzione strategica. Potremmo discutere alcuni di questi aspetti istituzionali per moltissimo tempo. A volte si riscontra anche nei
e non mi sottraggo a una responsabilità al riguardo – i quali, di fronte a un problema, scelgono di incolpare un’Istituzione europea anziché rielaborare una politica europea. E’ vero che abbiamo tutti la tendenza a farlo. A mio parere, quando decidiamo la direzione che deve prendere l’Europa – ed è ciò che dovremo fare nei prossimi mesi – quando discutiamo il modo in cui l’Europa affronta queste grandi sfide, dobbiamo sempre porre al centro dell’attenzione le preoccupazioni quotidiane delle persone che rappresentiamo. Siete la componente direttamente eletta delle Istituzioni europee. Sapete quanto sia importante, quando visitate le vostre comunità, rispondere alle questioni che sollevano. Parlano di posti di lavoro, sicurezza, criminalità e immigrazione. Si preoccupano dei cambiamenti nelle loro vite quotidiane. Dobbiamo disporre di politiche chiare, solide e adeguate per affrontare queste sfide. Se le applicheremo, i cittadini risponderanno e ci diranno che sono d’accordo, che è ragionevole avere una nuova Costituzione europea, perché comprenderanno il contesto politico in cui si svolge il dibattito costituzionale. Questo è un momento di grandi decisioni.
Sarebbe interessante vedere come se la caverebbe nella Camera dei Comuni britannica all’ora delle interrogazioni!
Per concludere, vorrei solo dire che la discussione di oggi in seno al Parlamento è stata eccezionale. Sono onorato di essere rimasto in Aula sino alla fine. So che sono stati espressi molti pareri diversi e sono state formulate critiche su di me e sulla mia Presidenza. Ciò fa parte di un sano dibattito democratico. Vorrei solo dire che se riuscissimo a riprodurre questa discussione nei nostri singoli paesi, a uscire e impegnarci con i cittadini, parlare loro di ciò in cui crediamo, spiegare perché riteniamo che l’Europa sia essenziale nel mondo di oggi, perché vogliamo introdurre i cambiamenti necessari ad adeguarla alle priorità delle persone, la discussione stessa aiuterebbe l’Europa. Se riusciremo a raggiungere le persone, dimostreremo la nostra importanza; la soddisfazione di saper rispondere alle loro preoccupazioni, ci aiuterà a rafforzare il progetto europeo. La discussione di oggi è stata davvero formidabile. E’ stato un vero privilegio presenziarla dall’inizio alla fine e vi ringrazio per la vostra attenzione.
Ringrazio tutti i deputati intervenuti nella discussione. Di sicuro non sono mancati i consigli, per i quali vi ringrazio. Come forse sapete, alcuni nostri colleghi oggi presenti in tribuna vengono dal Kuwait e hanno appena approvato una legge, come è già stato ricordato, che riconosce per la prima volta il diritto di voto alle donne. E’ un ottimo esempio del modo in cui si possono verificare progressi e cambiamenti. E’ un piacere vederla qui, signore.
Inoltre, molti oratori mi hanno chiesto di cercare di creare consenso in Europa. Va detto che, considerata la grande varietà di pareri, sarà una vera e propria impresa. Forse il suggerimento più interessante è rendere il gallese una lingua ufficiale dell’Unione europea. Potrebbe effettivamente essere il modo per raggiungere il consenso, vedremo.
Una cosa è certa: la nostra discussione di oggi ha suscitato enorme interesse non solo in seno al Parlamento, ma anche all’esterno.
Cercherò di rispondere ad alcune osservazioni specifiche fatte dai
e poi farò un breve riepilogo. Ringrazio molto il Presidente Barroso per le buone parole. Concordo riguardo al programma che ha illustrato. Vi sono molti punti in comune su cui possiamo lavorare. L’unica osservazione che vorrei fare sulla clausola di revisione relativa alle prossime prospettive finanziarie è che deve essere molto chiara, non deve essere ambigua. Lavoriamoci insieme."@it12
"Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@lt14
"Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@lv13
"Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil u graag bedanken voor de uitstekende discipline die u heeft opgelegd.
Ik zou ook de heer Poettering graag willen bedanken voor zijn vriendelijke woorden. Ik kan hem verzekeren dat wij ons uiterste best zullen doen om over een aantal problematische kwesties overeenstemming te bereiken, met name wat de financiële vooruitzichten betreft. Hij herinnerde mij aan de onderhandelingen die in 1992 met John Major zijn gevoerd. Gelukkig wees de heer Schulz erop dat wij niet alleen John Major in de verkiezingen van 1997 hebben verslagen, maar later ook de drie daaropvolgende leiders. Wellicht is dat echter een punt dat ik op een ander podium moet maken.
Wat de Grondwet betreft, had ik niet begrepen dat u dat zelf al had gezegd, mijnheer de Voorzitter, maar als u gezegd heeft, zoals in de loop van dit debat naar voren is gekomen, dat het niet om de tekst, maar om de context gaat, kan ik mij daar volledig bij aansluiten. Ooit zullen wij de discussie weer op moeten pakken over het invoeren van verstandige regels op grond waarvan wij als een Europese Unie van 25 landen - en in de toekomst zelfs nog meer landen - in plaats van als een Unie van 15 landen kunnen functioneren. In feite hebben wij een nieuw regelgevingskader voor Europa nodig en daarom was de impuls die de aanleiding voor de Grondwet is geweest een goede impuls. Als wij echter de benodigde steun voor de Grondwet willen verwerven, zullen wij eerst absolute duidelijkheid moeten scheppen over onze politieke koers.
De heer Watson vroeg om uitleg over de transparantie in de Raad, met name met betrekking tot de wetgeving, en daar is heel veel voor te zeggen. Daar zullen wij tijdens ons voorzitterschap dan ook aandacht aan besteden.
Het is goed om de heer Cohn-Bendit na al die jaren weer te zien. Lang geleden luisterde ik naar uw toespraken en nu luistert u naar die van mij.
Uit de overlevering zal blijken of dit vooruitgang is of niet!
Ik verontschuldig mij voor het feit dat ik in mijn speech niet meer tijd aan milieukwesties en klimaatverandering heb besteed. Ik hoop dat wij er tijdens de G8-Top in ieder geval wel voor kunnen zorgen dat deze onderwerpen de discussies domineren. Zij vormen een belangrijk aandachtspunt gedurende ons voorzitterschap van de Europese Unie.
De heer Mote maakte een opmerking over de korting en ik herhaal dat wij deze kwestie van alle kanten moeten bekijken, omdat de problemen die daarmee samenhangen gezamenlijk moeten worden opgelost. Ik wil er wel op wijzen dat wij zonder die korting de afgelopen tien jaar ongeveer vijftien keer zoveel bijgedragen zouden hebben als landen met een vergelijkbare omvang. Zelfs met die korting dragen wij in verhouding nog meer bij. Zonder die korting zouden wij in de periode die door de volgende financiële vooruitzichten wordt bestreken, de grootste nettobetaler zijn. Ik begrijp uw bezorgdheid en ik herhaal dat Engeland een redelijk deel van de uitbreiding voor zijn rekening zal nemen. Wij zijn voorstanders van uitbreiding en zullen daaraan ook onze bijdrage leveren. Dit probleem zal echter op een wijze opgelost moeten worden die voor iedereen aanvaardbaar is, met name in de context van de herziening waar wij het eerder over gehad hebben.
Het spijt mij dat ik niet op elk punt afzonderlijk in kan gaan. Uit sommige bijdragen sprak het gevoel dat de geschillen die thans bestaan slechts het gevolg zijn van botsende persoonlijkheden van regeringsleiders en staatshoofden of van meningsverschillen tussen landen. Ik wil duidelijk in algemene zin stellen dat ik naar mijn idee in de afgelopen acht jaar heb laten blijken dat ik altijd getracht heb om op een Europees niveau consensus tot stand te brengen en dat vind ik ook belangrijk.
Het is duidelijk dat over deze opmerking in ieder geval geen consensus bestaat!
Het probleem waarmee wij op dit moment worden geconfronteerd, zal ik aan de hand van de volgende vraag toelichten: waarom hecht ik zo ongelofelijk veel waarde aan de hervormingsagenda? Dat is omdat ik het gevoel heb dat het vijf voor twaalf is. Wij realiseren ons in Europa nog niet helemaal hoe belangrijk de economische concurrentiestrijd is die wij moeten aangaan. Wij staan voor een grote uitdaging en het is dringend noodzakelijk dat wij actie ondernemen!
Het is vreemd hoe dingen soms samenkomen, maar iedereen heeft zojuist China, India e.d. in hun speeches genoemd. In ieder geval blijkt hieruit dat mensen nu de ernst van de situatie inzien. Het gaat echter niet alleen om China en India. Kijk vandaag de dag ook eens naar landen als Vietnam en Thailand. De economieën van die landen ondergaan verbazingwekkende en drastische veranderingen. Het probleem is dat wij ons in de wereld van vandaag voortdurend aan dat veranderingsproces moeten aanpassen. Als wij dat niet doen, ben ik bang dat er twee dingen gaan gebeuren. Ten eerste loopt het sociale model en het beginsel van sociale solidariteit waar u en ik in geloven gevaar. Ten tweede, als wij niet berekend zijn op de uitdaging die een voortdurende verandering met zich meebrengt en indien wij ons daar niet aan kunnen aanpassen, wordt de steun voor een beleid zoals dat is geschetst door de heer Farage van de Engelse
alleen maar groter. Ik kan hem mededelen dat ik het volledig oneens ben met dat beleid. Ik wil niet dat Engeland in de rol terechtkomt van leider in de strijd tegen de Europese Unie. Dat is absoluut niet mijn bedoeling. Het verschil tussen hem en mij is heel eenvoudig: hij ziet de problemen van de Europese Unie als een aanleiding om de EU schipbreuk te laten leiden, terwijl ik van mening ben dat die problemen aantonen dat het noodzakelijk is om het fundament onder de Europese Unie nog verder te verstevigen. Deze twee opvattingen liggen mijlenver uit elkaar.
Zoals ik ook al in mijn eigen land en in mijn eigen parlement heb gezegd, besef ik heel goed dat aan dit debat over veranderingen en hervormingen alleen maar leiding gegeven kan worden vanuit een pro-Europees perspectief. Dat lijkt mij duidelijk. Het kan niet zo zijn dat mensen Europa eerst voor zichzelf claimen en vervolgens uitroepen - als iemand het niet met hun standpunten eens is - dat diegene dan op de een of andere manier tegen Europa is. Zoals een aantal sprekers in dit debat ook terecht heeft aangegeven, draait het niet om de vraag of Europa zou moeten veranderen of om de vraag of wij in Europa geloven, maar gaat het erom hoe Europa zou moeten veranderen en in welk soort Europa wij tegenwoordig vertrouwen hebben. Dat is de centrale vraag voor ons en dat is de kwestie die wij vol overtuiging en doelgericht moeten aanpakken.
Sta mij toe om nog een andere slotopmerking te maken. Ik heb al gezegd dat ik voorstander van de Grondwet ben, maar ik zal ook open kaart met u spelen. Gedurende alle debatten over de Grondwet is er één ding geweest waar ik mij zorgen over heb gemaakt: in mijn acht jaar als minister-president heb ik geconstateerd dat in Europa de neiging bestaat om problemen toe te schrijven aan institutionele kwesties terwijl het eigenlijk om problemen gaat die met de koers van het beleid te maken hebben. Over die institutionele kwesties kunnen wij heel lang debatteren. Soms leggen ook regeringsleiders en staatshoofden de schuld voor een bepaald probleem liever bij een Europese instelling dan dat zij het Europese beleid proberen te veranderen - ik pleit mijzelf op dat punt ook niet helemaal vrij. Het klopt dat die neiging bij iedereen aanwezig is. Mijn punt is echter dat er bij een besluit over de koers die Europa gaat volgen, altijd rekening gehouden moet worden met de dingen die de mensen die wij vertegenwoordigen elke dag bezighouden. Dat moeten wij de komende maanden centraal stellen tijdens het debat over de wijze waarop Europa deze grote uitdagingen aan moet gaan. U vertegenwoordigt het rechtstreeks gekozen deel van de Europese instellingen. U weet hoe belangrijk het is om bij bezoeken aan uw kiezers te reageren op wat hen echt bezighoudt. Zij praten over banen, veiligheid, criminaliteit en immigratie. Zij maken zich zorgen over de veranderingen in hun dagelijks leven. Wij moeten ervoor zorgen dat wij over een duidelijk, onverzettelijk en adequaat beleid beschikken om op deze uitdagingen berekend te zijn. Als wij daarin slagen, zullen de burgers daarna tegen ons zeggen dat een Europese Grondwet een goede zaak is omdat zij dan de politieke context begrijpen waarin dit constitutionele debat zich afspeelt. Wij staan dus thans aan de vooravond van een belangrijk besluit.
Het zou interessant zijn om te zien hoe u zich zou redden tijdens het vragenuur in het Britse Lagerhuis.
Concluderend kan ik alleen maar zeggen dat wij vandaag in het Europees Parlement een uitstekend debat hebben gevoerd. Ik ben vereerd dat ik dit debat heb mogen bijwonen. Er zijn veel uiteenlopende standpunten naar voren gebracht en ik ben mij ervan bewust dat er een aantal kritische opmerkingen over mij en mijn voorzitterschap zijn gemaakt, maar dat hoort nu eenmaal bij een goed democratisch debat. Als wij dit debat nu eens in onze eigen landen zouden kunnen herhalen en erin slagen onze burgers erbij te betrekken om hen duidelijk te maken waar wij in geloven, waarom wij denken dat de wereld van vandaag niet zonder Europa kan en waarom wij de noodzakelijke veranderingen willen doorvoeren om Europa aan te laten sluiten op de prioriteiten van de burgers, dan zouden wij juist door dit debat te voeren Europa een grote dienst bewijzen. Door ons open te stellen voor de mensen tonen wij onze relevantie aan. Door te zorgen dat wij in staat zijn om hun bezorgdheid weg te nemen, geven wij het Europese project weer nieuwe kracht. Ik heb het debat van vandaag als zeer indrukwekkend ervaren. Ik vond het een groot voorrecht om hierbij aanwezig te mogen zijn en ik dank u dat u naar mij hebt willen luisteren.
Ik wil graag iedereen bedanken die een bijdrage aan dit debat heeft geleverd. Het moge duidelijk zijn dat ik geen gebrek aan adviezen heb gehad, waarvoor mijn dank. Zoals u wellicht weet, is een aantal collega’s op de tribune afkomstig uit Koeweit waar zij, en daar is ook al eerder op gewezen, onlangs een wet hebben aangenomen waardoor vrouwen nu voor de eerste keer stemrecht hebben. Dit is een uitstekend voorbeeld van de wijze waarop vooruitgang en veranderingen kunnen plaatsvinden. Ik ben blij dat u er bent.
Daarnaast hebben veel sprekers mij verzocht om consensus in Europa tot stand te brengen. Dat is, gezien de zeer uiteenlopende standpunten, een behoorlijke uitdaging. Een van de meest interessante suggesties in dat verband was wellicht om het Welsh tot een van de officiële talen van de Europese Unie uit te roepen. Dat zou inderdaad de manier kunnen zijn om consensus in Europa te bewerkstelligen, maar dat zullen wij verder nog maar even afwachten.
Eén ding is zeker: Ons debat van vandaag wordt met veel belangstelling gevolgd, niet alleen hier in het Parlement, maar ook daarbuiten.
Ik zal trachten om in te gaan op een aantal specifieke opmerkingen van de fractievoorzitters en zal daarna een korte samenvatting geven. Ik wil echter eerst voorzitter Barroso bedanken voor zijn vriendelijke woorden. Ik ben het eens met de agenda die hij heeft opgesteld. Er zijn veel gemeenschappelijke zaken waar wij aan kunnen werken. De enige opmerking die ik wil maken over de herzieningsclausule met betrekking tot de volgende financiële vooruitzichten is dat deze clausule bijzonder duidelijk en absoluut niet ambigu mag zijn. Laten wij dat samen proberen te realiseren."@nl3
"Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, agradeço ter imposto a ordem com tanta autoridade.
Quanto ao senhor deputado Poettering, agradeço as suas simpáticas palavras e asseguro-lhe que daremos o nosso melhor para chegar a acordo em alguns dos assuntos mais delicados, em especial as Perspectivas Financeiras. Recordou-me as negociações de John Major, em 1992, pelo que fiquei muito grato ao senhor deputado Schulz por nos ter lembrado que o derrotámos nas eleições de 1997, assim como derrotámos três líderes que se apresentaram subsequentemente, mas esse é, porventura, um assunto a discutir noutro local.
Relativamente à Constituição, não tinha percebido que o senhor o tinha afirmado, Senhor Presidente, mas se é verdade que disse, como foi mencionado durante o debate, que o problema não é o texto, é o contexto, então, estou totalmente de acordo consigo. Chegará uma altura em que teremos de voltar a debater regras sensatas que rejam o nosso trabalho como União Europeia a 25 - e até, de futuro, com mais membros - e não a 15. A verdade é que precisamos de um novo enquadramento legislativo para a Europa, o que demonstra que o impulso que levou ao aparecimento da Constituição tinha toda a razão de ser. Contudo, é necessário encontrar uma direcção política firme, para que a Constituição receba o apoio que merece.
O senhor deputado Watson questionou-me sobre a transparência do Conselho e reconheço que, no que respeita à elaboração de leis, tem toda a razão para o fazer. Vamos debruçar-nos sobre o assunto durante a nossa Presidência.
É com agrado que vejo o senhor deputado Cohn-Bendit ao fim de tantos anos. Muito tempo atrás eu escutava os seus discursos, agora é o senhor que está a ouvir o meu.
A História dirá se estamos ou não a progredir!
Peço desculpa por não me deter mais longamente nos problemas do ambiente e das alterações climáticas. Espero que, na Cimeira do G8, finalmente estes assuntos possam dominar o debate. Constituirão parte importante da nossa Presidência da União Europeia.
Quanto às afirmações do senhor deputado Mote sobre o cheque britânico, repito que devemos considerar toda a questão no seu contexto. Trata-se de aspectos que têm de ser solucionados em conjunto. Diria apenas que, sem o cheque, a nossa contribuição nos últimos dez anos teria sido cerca de 15 vezes superior à de outros países de dimensão semelhante e, mesmo com o cheque, ainda contribuímos mais do que eles. Se não houvesse qualquer tipo de desconto, nas próximas Perspectivas Financeiras seríamos o maior contribuinte líquido. Compreendo as preocupações expressas e repito que a Grã-Bretanha pagará a sua quota-parte para o alargamento. Apoiamos o alargamento e vamos contribuir nesse sentido. O assunto deve, porém, ser resolvido a contento de todas as partes e, sobretudo, no contexto da revisão já aqui discutida.
Peço desculpa por não poder responder a todas as observações individualmente. Segundo algumas intervenções parece que estamos perante um braço-de-ferro entre líderes, baseado em personalidades ou em desacordos entre países. Gostaria que ficasse bem claro que, em termos gerais, penso ter mostrado, nos últimos oito anos, que sempre tentei chegar a consenso a nível europeu e que considero importante fazê-lo.
É óbvio que não consegui o consenso quanto a esta afirmação!
As dificuldades que sentimos neste momento e que quero explicar-lhes são as seguintes: por que motivo estou tão empenhado na reforma? Porque ela me parece urgente. Na Europa não compreendemos ainda o desafio económico e de concorrência que temos perante nós. O desafio é sério e urgente!
É estranho como algumas coisas acontecem, mas a verdade é que todos mencionaram a China e a Índia, entre outros, nos seus discursos. Mas as pessoas compreendem que a situação é grave. E não estão em questão apenas a China e a Índia: vejam países como o Vietname ou a Tailândia, hoje. As alterações que estão a operar nas respectivas economias são extraordinárias e dramáticas. O problema é que, no mundo actual, temos de nos adaptar constantemente a esse processo de mudança. Preocupo-me pois, se nada fizermos, acontecerão duas coisas. Primeira, o próprio modelo social e a ideia de solidariedade social em que nós, em que eu acredito ficarão em risco. Segunda, se não conseguirmos enfrentar o desafio da mudança e não conseguirmos adaptar-nos a fim de lhe dar resposta, o resultado será o apoio às políticas que o senhor deputado Farage defendeu em nome do
do Reino Unido. Devo dizer-lhe que discordo totalmente dessas políticas. Não quero ver a Grã-Bretanha a liderar um ataque contra a União Europeia, de modo nenhum. A diferença entre nós é muito simples: o Senhor Deputado vê os problemas da União Europeia como uma oportunidade para afundar a União, eu vejo-os como base necessária para a revigorar. Existe uma grande diferença entre estas duas posições.
Estou profundamente consciente, como afirmei no meu Parlamento e no meu país, de que este debate sobre a mudança e a reforma não pode ser conduzido de uma perspectiva que não seja uma perspectiva pró-europeia. É algo que reconheço. Não basta que cada um se limite a reclamar para si a Europa e a dizer que, se alguém contesta aquilo que ele próprio afirma, é porque está, de alguma forma, contra a Europa. A questão, como muito bem a colocaram diversos oradores, não reside em saber se a Europa deve mudar ou se acreditamos na Europa, mas como é que a Europa deve mudar e em que Europa acreditamos hoje. É isto que, para nós, está em jogo e é a estas perguntas que devemos, seriamente, tentar dar resposta.
Um último ponto. Já expliquei por que motivo apoio a Constituição. Mas tenho de ser honesto. Aquilo que verdadeiramente me preocupou durante toda a discussão sobre a Constituição foi o seguinte: observei, durante os oito anos que já levo como Primeiro-Ministro, uma tendência para a Europa, por vezes, se debruçar sobre questões institucionais quando o que está em causa é o rumo político. Podemos estar a debater algumas dessas questões institucionais durante imenso tempo. Por vezes encontramos essa tendência também em responsáveis políticos - e eu próprio não sou isento de responsabilidade neste aspecto - que, quando deparam com um problema, preferem culpar uma instituição europeia do que reformular uma política europeia. É verdade que todos temos tendência para o fazer. O que eu pretendo dizer é que, quando decidirmos que direcção pretendemos para a Europa - e é isso que temos de fazer nos próximos meses, quando procedermos ao debate sobre como a Europa lida com esses grandes desafios, - convém termos sempre em mente as preocupações quotidianas daqueles que representamos. Os senhores são a parte das Instituições europeias directamente eleita. Sabem como é importante deslocarem-se ao vosso círculo eleitoral e darem resposta ao que preocupa os vossos eleitores. Preocupa-os o emprego, a segurança, o crime e a imigração. Preocupa-os a mudança na sua vida quotidiana. Temos de apresentar políticas adequadas, claras, determinadas, para lidar com esses desafios. Se o fizermos, os cidadãos corresponderão e dir-nos-ão que concordam em que é judicioso dispor de uma nova Constituição Europeia pois, nessa altura, terão compreendido o contexto político em que está a decorrer esse debate constitucional. Estamos num momento de decisão crucial.
Seria interessante ver como se sairia na Câmara dos Comuns Britânica, no Período de Perguntas!
Para terminar, diria apenas que o debate de hoje no Parlamento Europeu foi excelente. Tenho muita honra em ter estado presente e sei que foram expressas opiniões assaz diferentes e apresentadas algumas críticas a mim próprio e à minha Presidência. Tudo isso faz parte de um debate democrático saudável. Eu atrevia-me apenas a sugerir que, se pudéssemos reproduzir este debate nos nossos países individualmente e falar com os nossos cidadãos, trocar ideias sobre aquilo em que acreditamos, por que acreditamos que a Europa é necessária para o mundo de hoje, por que razão queremos proceder às alterações necessárias para que ela esteja em consonância com as prioridades das pessoas, então, só com esse debate já estaríamos a ajudar a Europa: se chegarmos aos nossos cidadãos mostraremos que servimos para alguma coisa; no próprio facto de estarmos em posição de dar resposta às suas preocupações estaremos a vivificar o projecto europeu. Considero o debate de hoje admirável. Foi um verdadeiro privilégio participar nele. Muito obrigado pela vossa atenção.
Os meus agradecimentos a todos quantos contribuíram para este debate. Se alguma coisa ficou clara é que não faltaram sugestões, pelas quais estou muito grato. Como, provavelmente, é do vosso conhecimento, encontram-se na galeria alguns dos nossos colegas do Kuwait e, como já antes foi referido, acabam de aprovar legislação que confere, pela primeira vez, direito de voto às mulheres. Eis um excelente exemplo de que o progresso e a mudança são possíveis. Excelência, é bom vê-lo aqui.
Muitos colegas me pediram para tentar encontrar consenso em toda a Europa. Há que reconhecer, dada a vasta gama de opiniões, que será uma tarefa bastante difícil. A sugestão mais interessante talvez tenha sido a que propunha tornar o Galês língua oficial da União Europeia. Poderá, de facto, ser uma forma de chegar a consenso, veremos.
Do que não há dúvida é de que o nosso debate de hoje suscitou um enorme interesse, não apenas aqui, no Parlamento, mas também lá fora.
Tentarei dar resposta a alguns comentários apresentados pelos responsáveis políticos e, depois, farei uma breve síntese. No que diz respeito ao Presidente Barroso, agradeço encarecidamente as suas amáveis palavras. Concordo com a agenda que estabeleceu. Há muitos pontos comuns que poderemos trabalhar. Eu faria uma única observação sobre a cláusula de revisão relativamente às próximas Perspectivas Financeiras: essa cláusula tem de ser muito clara, livre de quaisquer ambiguidades. É um tema em que convém juntarmos os nossos esforços."@pt17
"Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@sk18
"Mr President, I thank you for that excellent discipline you have imposed.
In respect of Mr Poettering, I thank him for his kind sentiments and we will do our very best to reach agreement on some of the difficult issues, in particular the financial perspective. He reminded me of John Major’s negotiations in 1992, so I was rather grateful for Mr Schulz reminding us that we defeated both him in the 1997 election and three subsequent leaders, but that is perhaps a point to make in a different forum.
On the Constitution, I had not appreciated that you said this yourself, Mr President, but if you said, as was reported in the course of the debate, that it was not the text but the context, then I entirely agree with that. There will be a time when we have to return to the discussion of sensible rules to govern our working as a European Union of 25 – and even larger numbers in the future – rather than 15. The truth is that we need a new framework of rules for Europe and, therefore, the impulse that gave rise to the Constitution was entirely correct. It is, however, necessary to get the political direction firm in order to get the Constitution supported in the way that it should be.
Mr Watson challenged me over Council transparency and, certainly in relation to legislating, there is a strong case for that. Let us consider that under our presidency.
It is good to see Mr Cohn-Bendit after all these years. A long time ago I used to listen to your speeches, and now you listen to mine.
Only history will tell whether this is progress or not!
I apologise for not spending more of my speech on the issues of the environment and climate change. I hope that at the G8 summit we will have at least a chance for these issues to dominate the discussion. They will be a major aspect of our European Union presidency.
In respect of what Mr Mote said about the rebate, I repeat that we must look at all of this in the round. These issues all need to be resolved together. All I would point out is that without the rebate we would have been contributing about 15 times as much as other similar sized countries over the past 10 years, and even with it, we are contributing more. Without it in existence at all, over the next financial perspective we would be the largest net contributor. I understand your concerns and I repeat that Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement. We support enlargement and will contribute towards it. However, the issue has to be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everybody and in the context, particularly, of the point about the review that we discussed earlier.
I apologise for not dealing with every single individual point. In some contributions there has been a sense that this is just a dispute between leaders based on personality or disagreements between countries. I want to make it clear that, in general terms, I think I have shown over the past eight years that I have always tried to reach consensus at a European level and it is important that we do so.
Obviously I have not reached consensus on that statement!
The difficulty we have at the moment which I just want to describe to you is: why is it that I feel so passionately about the reform agenda? It is because of a sense of urgency. We do not quite realise in Europe the competitive economic challenge we face today. It is serious and it is urgent!
It is strange how things happen but just now everybody has mentioned China, India, etc. in their speeches. Now, however, people understand the seriousness of this situation. It is not simply China and India: take countries like Vietnam or Thailand today. The changes they are making in their economies are amazing and dramatic. The trouble is that in today’s world you have to adapt constantly to that process of change. My worry is that if we do not, two things will happen. First, the very social model and the idea of social solidarity that we, and I, believe in is put at risk. Second, if we cannot handle the challenge of change and if we are unable to adapt to do so, then as a result support comes about for the policies that Mr Farage outlined for the UK Independence Party. I have to tell him that I completely disagree with those policies. I do not want Britain to be in the position of leading a charge against the European Union. That is not my determination at all. The difference between you and me is very simple: you see the problems of the European Union as an opportunity to wreck the European Union, I see them as the necessity for reinvigorating the European Union. There is a big difference between the two.
I am well aware, as I have said in my own Parliament and country, this debate for change and reform cannot be led in any other way than from a pro-European perspective. That is something I understand. It is not enough for each person to simply claim Europe for themselves and to say that if you challenge what I am saying, it means somehow you are against Europe. The question, as was rightly put by several speakers in the debate, is not whether Europe should change or whether we believe in Europe, but how Europe should change and what type of Europe we believe in today. That is the issue for us and it is the issue we have to address with a genuine seriousness of purpose.
I want to make one other final point. I have said why I support the Constitution. But I will be frank with you. The one thing that worried me during the course of all the debates about the Constitution was this: there is a tendency that I have noticed over my eight years as Prime Minister for Europe sometimes to go back over institutional questions when the questions are really about policy direction. We can debate some of these institutional questions for a very long time. Sometimes you also find it in leaders – and I do not absolve myself of responsibility on this – who, when there is a problem, want to blame a European institution rather than refashion a European policy. It is true that we all have a tendency to do that. My point is that when we decide the direction of Europe – and that is what the coming months have to be about; when we have the debate about how Europe copes with these great challenges, we should always keep our minds focused on the daily concerns of the people we represent. You are the directly elected part of the European institutions. You know how important it is when you go out into your communities to respond to what they talk about. They talk about jobs, security, crime and immigration. They worry about the change in their daily lives. We must have the clear, tough, proper policies to deal with these challenges. If we do, they will respond to us and tell us that they agree it is sensible to have a new European Constitution, because they will then understand the political context in which that constitutional debate is happening. This is a big moment of decision.
It would be interesting to see how you would get on in the British House of Commons at Question Time!
In conclusion, I would only say that today’s debate in the European Parliament has been excellent. I am honoured to have sat through it, I know there have been many different views and some critical things have been said about me and my presidency. That is part of a healthy democratic debate. I would just suggest to you that if we could replicate this debate in our individual countries and go out and engage with our people and talk to them about what we believe in, why we think Europe is necessary for today’s world, why we want to make the changes necessary to bring it into line with people’s priorities, then in the very act of debate we will help Europe; in the very reaching out to people we will show our relevance; in the very satisfaction of being in a position to answer their concerns, we will reinvigorate the European project. I have found today’s debate immensely impressive. It has been a genuine privilege to sit through it, and I thank you for listening to me.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. One thing, for sure, is that I have not been short of advice, for which I thank you. As you may know, some of our colleagues in the gallery today are from Kuwait, and have just passed a law, as was indicated earlier, giving women the vote for the first time. They are an excellent example of how progress and change can happen. It is good to see you here, Sir.
In addition, many speakers have asked me to try to achieve a consensus across Europe. It must be said, given the broad range of views, that is going to be quite some challenge. Perhaps the most interesting suggestion was that we made Welsh one of the official languages of the European Union. It could indeed be the way to achieve a consensus, but we shall see.
One thing is certain: our debate today has provoked enormous interest not just here in this Parliament but also outside.
I will try to respond to some of the specific comments made by the leaders and then make a short summary. In respect of President Barroso, I thank him very much for his kind words. I agree with the agenda he has set out. There is much in common we can work on. The only point I would make on the review clause in respect of the next financial perspective is that it has to be very clear, it must not be ambiguous. Let us work on that together."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Jag tackar er för den utmärkta disciplin som ni har infört.
Jag vill tacka Hans-Gert Poettering för hans vänliga ord, och vi kommer att göra vårt bästa för att uppnå enighet om några av de svåra frågorna, särskilt budgetplanen. Han påminde mig om John Majors förhandlingar 1992, så jag är ganska tacksam för att Martin Schulz påminde oss om att vi besegrade honom i valet 1997 och därefter tre av hans efterföljare, men det påpekandet kanske passar bättre i ett annat forum.
När det gäller konstitutionen hade jag inte riktigt förstått att det var ni själv som sade det, herr talman, men om ni, som det framkom under debatten, har sagt att det inte var texten utan kontexten, så håller jag fullständigt med om det. Det kommer att komma en tid då vi på nytt måste ta upp diskussionen om förnuftiga regler för hur vi skall styra arbetet i ett EU med 25 medlemsstater – och till och med ännu fler i framtiden – i stället för 15. Sanningen är att vi behöver ett nytt regelverk för EU och därför var idén om en konstitution fullständigt korrekt. Det är emellertid nödvändigt att få ordentlig ordning på de politiska målsättningarna för att vi skall kunna få det stöd för konstitutionen som den borde få.
Graham Watson efterlyste större öppenhet i rådet och det finns, särskilt när det gäller lagstiftningen, starka skäl till detta. Vi kommer att ha detta i åtanke under vårt ordförandeskap.
Det är trevligt att få träffa Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit efter alla dessa år. För länge sedan brukade jag lyssna till era tal, och nu är det ni som lyssnar till mitt.
Endast historien kan utvisa om detta är ett framsteg eller inte!
Jag ber om ursäkt för att jag inte ägnar mer av mitt tal åt miljöfrågorna och klimatförändringen. Jag hoppas att det åtminstone skall finnas en möjlighet för dessa frågor att dominera diskussionen vid G8-toppmötet. De kommer att vara en av de viktigaste aspekterna under den tid vi har ordförandeskapet för Europeiska unionen.
När det gäller det som Ashley Mote sade om rabatten, upprepar jag att vi måste se över alla dessa frågor vid rundan. Alla dessa frågor måste lösas tillsammans. Jag vill bara påpeka att utan rabatt skulle vi ha bidragit med omkring 15 gånger mer än andra länder av motsvarande storlek under de senaste tio åren, och att vi trots rabatten bidrar mer. Om den skulle avskaffas helt skulle vi bli den största nettobidragsgivaren nästa budgetperiod. Jag förstår er oro och upprepar att Förenade kungariket kommer att betala sin rättmätiga andel av utvidgningen. Vi stöder utvidgningen och kommer att bidra till den. Frågan måste emellertid lösas på ett sätt som är tillfredsställande för alla och framför allt i samband med den översyn som vi diskuterade tidigare.
Jag ber om ursäkt för att jag inte besvarar alla enskilda synpunkter. Av en del inlägg har det framgått att talaren anser att det endast rör sig om en kontrovers mellan ledarna baserad på personlighet eller oenighet mellan länderna. Jag vill klargöra att jag anser att de senaste åtta åren generellt sett har visat att jag alltid försöker nå samförstånd i EU-frågor och att det är viktigt att vi gör det.
Uppenbarligen råder det inte samförstånd om det uttalandet!
En svårighet som vi står inför och som jag vill ta upp med er är reformagendan, och jag vill berätta varför jag känner så starkt för den. Det beror på att den är så viktig. Vi inser inte riktigt inom EU vilken konkurrens och vilken ekonomisk utmaning vi står inför i dag. Det är allvarligt och det är bråttom!
Det är märkligt hur saker och ting faller sig, men alldeles nyss nämnde alla Kina, Indien etc. i sina tal. Nu börjar vi inse hur allvarlig situationen är. Det gäller inte enbart Kina och Indien: ta länder som Vietnam eller Thailand. Den förändring som sker i deras ekonomier är enastående och omvälvande. Problemet är att man i dagens värld ständigt måste anpassa sig till denna förändringsprocess. Om vi inte gör det är jag orolig för att två saker kommer att hända. För det första kommer den sociala modell och den uppfattning om social solidaritet som vi, och jag, tror på att riskeras. För det andra: om vi inte kan klara av den utmaning som en förändring innebär och om vi inte kan anpassa oss för att göra det, kommer resultatet att bli ett ökat stöd för den politik som Nigel Farage målade upp för UK Independence Party. Jag måste säga att jag är fullständigt emot den politiken. Jag vill inte att Förenade kungariket skall vara i den situationen att vi leder ett angrepp mot Europeiska unionen. Detta är verkligen inte min avsikt. Skillnaden mellan er och mig är mycket enkel: ni ser EU:s problem som en möjlighet att undergräva unionen, jag ser dem som en nödvändighet för att ge nytt liv åt unionen. Det är en stor skillnad mellan dessa två synsätt.
Jag är väl medveten om att denna debatt om förändring och reform, vilket jag har sagt i mitt eget parlament och land, inte kan föras på något annat sätt än ur ett proeuropeiskt perspektiv. Det är något som jag inser. Det räcker inte att vi alla gör anspråk på EU för egen del, och säger att om ni inte håller med mig betyder det att ni är emot EU. Frågan är inte, som så riktigt sades av flera talare under debatten, om EU bör förändras eller om vi tror på EU, utan hur EU bör förändras och vilket slags EU vi tror på. Det är den fråga vi måste lösa och vi måste ta itu med den med verkligt allvar och beslutsamhet.
Till sist vill jag påpeka ytterligare en sak. Jag har sagt varför jag stöder konstitutionen. Men jag skall vara uppriktig mot er. Den enda sak som oroade mig under alla diskussioner om konstitutionen var detta: det finns en tendens inom EU som jag har noterat under mina åtta år som premiärminister att ibland fastna i en diskussion om institutionella frågor när det egentligen handlar om de politiska målsättningarna. En del av dessa institutionella frågor kan vi hålla på och diskutera väldigt länge. Ibland ser man det också hos ledarna – och jag är inte själv helt oskyldig i detta avseende – som gärna när det finns ett problem skyller på en EU-institution i stället för att ändra EU-politiken. Det är sant att vi alla har en tendens att göra detta. Det som jag vill säga är att när vi beslutar vilken väg EU skall ta – och det måste vi göra under de kommande månaderna, när vi diskuterar hur EU skall hantera dessa stora utmaningar, bör vi alltid komma ihåg de dagliga problemen för de människor som vi företräder. Ni är den direktvalda delen av EU-institutionerna. Ni vet hur viktigt det är att kunna diskutera med folk när ni besöker era valkretsar. De talar om jobb, trygghet, kriminalitet och invandring. De oroar sig för förändringarna i det dagliga livet. Vi måste ha en klar, stark och ordentlig politik för att kunna hantera dessa utmaningar. Om vi har det, kommer folk att inse det förnuftiga med en EU-konstitution, eftersom de då kommer att förstå det politiska sammanhanget bakom diskussionen om konstitutionen. Detta är ett stort beslut.
Det vore intressant att se hur ni skulle klara er vid frågestunden i det brittiska underhuset!
Sammanfattningsvis vill jag endast säga att dagens debatt i Europaparlamentet har varit utmärkt. Det var en ära för mig att få närvara under hela debatten, jag vet att det har framförts många olika synpunkter, och en del kritiska saker har sagts om mig och mitt ordförandeskap. Det är så det skall vara i en hälsosam, demokratisk debatt. Jag vill endast föreslå att ni fortsätter denna debatt i era egna länder och går ut och träffar folk och talar med dem om det som vi tror på, varför vi anser att EU behövs i dagens värld, varför vi vill göra nödvändiga förändringar för att EU skall beakta det som är viktigt för folk – då kommer vi genom själva debatten att hjälpa EU. Genom att nå ut till folk kommer vi att visa EU:s betydelse. Genom själva tillfredsställelsen över att kunna bemöta deras problem kommer vi att ge nytt liv åt EU-projektet. Dagens debatt var oerhört imponerande. Det har varit ett verkligt privilegium att få delta och jag vill tacka er för att ni har lyssnat på mig.
Jag vill tacka alla som har bidragit till denna debatt. En sak är säker, och det är att det inte har varit någon brist på goda råd, vilket jag tackar för. Som ni nog vet kommer några av våra kolleger på läktarna i dag från Kuwait och har nyss, som det sades tidigare, antagit en lag som ger kvinnor rösträtt för första gången. Det är ett utmärkt exempel på hur framsteg och förändring kan göras möjliga. Det är trevligt att ha er här.
Många talare har därtill bett mig att försöka åstadkomma samförstånd inom EU. Det måste sägas att med tanke på åsiktsbredden innebär detta verkligen en utmaning. Ett av de mest intressanta förslagen var kanske att vi skall göra walesiska till ett av de officiella språken i Europeiska unionen. Det kan verkligen vara ett sätt att uppnå samförstånd, men vi får se.
En sak är säker: vår debatt i dag har väckt ett enormt intresse inte endast här i parlamentet utan också utanför.
Jag skall försöka att besvara några av de särskilda synpunkterna från ledarna för de olika politiska grupperna och sedan göra en kort sammanfattning. Jag vill tacka ordförande José Manuel Barroso så mycket för hans vänliga ord. Jag håller med om den agenda han har satt upp. Det finns många gemensamma frågor vi kan samarbeta kring. Min enda synpunkt på klausulen om översyn när det gäller nästa budgetplan är att den måste vara mycket tydlig, den får inte vara mångtydig. Låt oss samarbeta kring detta."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Aplausos)"20,17
"(Applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,13,4
"(Laughter and applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"(Laughter)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"(Loud and sustained applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4
"(Mixed reactions)"5,5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4
"Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"Primer Ministro del Reino Unido."20
"Tony Blair,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4,20
"leader"12
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples