Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-16-Speech-2-219"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081216.31.2-219"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Kirkhope, thank you for your support. That gives me the opportunity to turn to a British Conservative to say how important it is for us in Europe for this great party, the British Conservative Party, to remain deeply committed to European integration.
In any case, I have no intention of justifying it every time Mrs Merkel and I agree with each other, support each other or help each other. I am not forgetting one thing, however, which is that Germany is a federal state, while France is much more centralised, in spite of decentralisation. The rhythm, the time needed for making decisions is not the same. That has nothing to do with Mrs Merkel’s abilities or any faults on my part; it has to do with the structure of the two states, which are not the same. Furthermore, Germany has a coalition government. I am not sure whether Mrs Merkel spontaneously chose the socialists in her government. I was responsible for choosing the socialists in my government. That is the second difference, but one that also explains the time it takes to make decisions.
Rest assured, however, that in any case Germany is not being attacked. Germany is the largest economy in Europe. We need Germany, and Germany needs Europe. Let it be said also, however, that France and Germany have no more rights than the others; we have more responsibilities and these too we must bear together. Do not worry. I am fully aware of that.
Mrs De Sarnez, you are right, there is still much to be done. I shall not go back over the comments you made about the Presidency. There is still much to be done. You spoke about the need for a European regulator, and you are absolutely right. Let us tell things as they are. We have not achieved that for the moment because a certain number of smaller countries consider that, if they had to do without a national regulator, it would create problems for their national sovereignty. We have to take account of that, but in my view, I think that at the very least we have to have a college of European regulators.
Secondly, do we need a European public prosecutor? It is a fascinating debate, which also involves other issues and certainly better collaboration.
Regarding major projects, it is my turn to ask you not to be too hard on us because EUR 5 billion have been freed up by the President of the Commission. It was quite a battle, Mrs De Sarnez, because not all the countries were in agreement about that, just to finance major projects, and in all honesty I must say that the Commission was a lot more ambitious than some Member States. Quite simply, for the Commission to be able to use the five billion for the purpose of major projects, every Member State had to give its permission. We got that and now at least we have the five billion.
Finally, with regard to aid for developing countries, I am afraid I do not share your point of view. With Mr Barroso, we used the EUR 1 billion that some Member States, once again, did not want, and at the Hokkaido Summit I had to persuade my European partners to give permission for Mr Barroso to use, for the Millennium Development Goals, the money that had not been spent, so that was EUR 1 billion that was put in.
At the Doha Summit, I was stunned, Mrs De Sarnez, to find myself the only Western Head of State present around the table. Out of all the G20 Heads of State or Government, there were only two of us: the President of South Africa and the President of the European Council, as well as Mr Barroso. The others were not there. Just imagine what you would have said to me if I had not bothered to go! We were there because the crisis must not be used as an excuse to make the poorest countries be the ones to pay the most for a crisis for which they are in no way responsible. I think that that may be a point of disagreement, once again.
Mr Hudghton, diversity and unity: rest assured, from the point of view of diversity there is no progress to be made! Frankly, if I had to put my energy behind one project, I would put it behind unity because I notice that no one around the Council table forgets where he is from. It is a bit more difficult to know where one is going. There is a great French ethnologist, Lévi-Strauss, who made a definitive statement, and it was extraordinary when he himself said it, that ‘identity is not a disease’. Identity is not a disease in Europe and so really any surplus energy ought to be put towards unity.
Mr Crowley, thank you for your support at the European Council. I was very pleased to welcome you to the Élysée Palace as the representative of your group, and I must say I very much appreciate the courage and the honesty that you have always shown.
Mrs de Brún, yes, we have to reassure and persuade the Irish. You said to me that we have not gone far enough. I am sorry to say this but we cannot go further because otherwise, it would immediately mess things up in other countries. If, in order to sort out the Irish problem, we reopen the debate about ratification in other countries, particularly the United Kingdom, we put ourselves in an impossible situation, and the most difficult compromise was the discussion early, very early on the Friday morning at the European Council, between the Irish Prime Minister and the British Prime Minister, trying to seek an agreement. Mr Brown – I can understand this – did not want to reopen the debate about ratification in the United Kingdom when everyone knows it had been extremely painful. I think, therefore, that we cannot go further. Frankly, however, we are going quite a long way in promising a protocol to the first Treaty of Accession in two years time.
I have nothing to do with politics in the United Kingdom. You have a young leader, Mr Cameron, and you are a party with a long history. We need you within Europe, and nothing, Mr Kirkhope, in Europe can be successful on its own. I do not know what the future will be for Mr Gordon Brown or what the future will be for Mr Cameron, but whoever the leader of the United Kingdom may be, he will need others in order to make progress, to defend its interests, to win in Europe. That cannot be done alone and I would like to say one thing, namely that I have always been convinced that the United Kingdom had a special role to play in Europe. Sometimes I have been criticised because the United Kingdom speaks the world’s leading language, because it has a dynamic economy, but think about it. Look at what it has cost the United Kingdom to have been too exclusively linked with the United States, what it has cost it to have been too exclusively committed to financial services; look, Europe needs the United Kingdom but I remain convinced that the United Kingdom needs Europe.
Mr Wojciechowski, we will help the Czech Presidency. There must be no doubt about that on your part. What did Mr Kaczynski say to me? It pains me to tell you because the last time he said something to me he did not keep to it. He said at the European Council that he would not put obstacles in the way of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon if the Irish voted ‘yes’. I merely reminded him of one thing – and I did so without joining in the debate with Mr Tusk, the Prime Minister – that is, that it was in my office, at three o’clock in the morning, in July 2007, under the German Presidency, with Mr Zapatero, Tony Blair and Mr Juncker, that we obtained the signature of the Polish President on what was to become the Treaty of Lisbon, while he was in conversation with his twin brother, the Prime Minister at the time, in Warsaw.
I respect the Polish President, but I must say I was surprised that someone could sign a treaty in Brussels and refuse to sign the same treaty in Warsaw. Really! I am merely saying that when one signs on behalf of a state, then that is a promise! You will understand that. I shall say no more about it, but nonetheless, that is what was said to me. The Treaty of Lisbon was not negotiated by the Prime Minister, Mr Tusk, it was negotiated by the Polish President, Mr Kaczynski and his twin brother, who was Prime Minister at the time. There you are, that is all. In the end, it was not completely ratified because one signature was lacking, but it was ratified by Parliament. That is all.
Saying that is not getting involved in internal politics, that is being honest and I have to be honest, with all the responsibilities that I have, I have to say exactly what happened, whom we negotiated with and when. Otherwise, it is not possible to have confidence. It is not a matter of left wing or right wing, it is not a matter of Eastern countries or Western countries, it is simply a matter of keeping your promises. Without respect for your word, there will be no rule of law, there will be no Europe. It is as simple as that.
Mr Chruszcz, you know that, quite frankly, I did everything I could for Poland to find ways to reach a compromise. At the European Council in July 2007, under the German Presidency, we were not far off from disaster when certain Member States said that we should go on without Poland. It was only at the last minute that we were able to find a compromise on the Treaty of Lisbon. That is the truth. Nobody wanted Poland to be left out. Poland has 38 million people, which makes it one of the six largest countries in Europe in terms of population. We need you. In the compromise, I was at Gdańsk to negotiate with Poland and eight other Member States. We understood Poland’s problems. We will support Poland, but Poland must also understand that, as one of the larger countries of Europe, it has rights but it also has duties.
After all, the counterparts of rights are duties, and it would be doing them a disservice if we said that, because you have been a member of the European Union for a shorter time than the others, you have fewer duties. Poland is an important European country. You should not reproach us for treating it as such, that is to say, asking a bit more of it, precisely because Poland is an important country. That is exactly what I wanted to do and I hope that the Poles understand that.
Mr Nassauer, thank you for your support as a very experienced Member of Parliament, as a German Member of Parliament. I was not shocked by your defence of industry in general and German industry in particular, because I see too often – I say this to Mr Schulz, as well as to Mr Daul – I see too often the devastating effects of the financial crisis in countries that have not defended their industries strongly enough. I think that transcends the divisions between us because we do not want Europe to become an industrial desert. An industrial desert means millions more people out of work, because if we let our jobs in industry go, then jobs in the service sector will go next. It is a mistake to say that we are defending services but not jobs in industry.
What we meant was that defending industry means forcing it to modernise, because Europeans will no longer accept industries that cause pollution. That is the balance that we have tried to find. It has been painful and difficult because Germany is a great industrial country and, inevitably, a great industrial country is more affected than a country that no longer has any industry. Your country is next door to Poland. If we made provisions to allow a derogation for Poland in 2013-2020, we could not have avoided raising the issue of new power stations in Germany, so as to avoid a distortion of competition between two countries that are so close. There again, I think that that was being honest.
Mr Rasmussen, do not worry too much about the results. You are absolutely right. Nonetheless, do not forget the social stabilisers, because our American friends have a real flair for communicating, for announcing amazing figures. For the moment, these are just statements. I remember Paulson Plan I. We were all dumbfounded: suddenly, the Secretary of State to the Treasury was talking about 700 billion! Everybody was wondering whether Europe would be capable of doing as well. Then, what did we see? Three days later, it was not adopted by Congress and the Americans were back to square one.
What did we see after that? That after all, the sum was not what had been anticipated. The social system in the United States is nothing like the social system in Europe, in each one of our countries. The social stabilisers have to be added to the money put in for recovery, that is, all the benefits payments, what we are doing to protect them from the development of inflation, and whatever else we are putting into the pot. However, for goodness sake, let us at least believe in the plan we are implementing! Maybe the crisis will be so serious that we will need to do something else. But then, never mind! What has been achieved is not nothing. You say to me that the United Kingdom and Spain have done more. But Spain had a surplus budget and is facing a property crisis on an unprecedented scale. Mr Zapatero has reacted extremely well but, we can hardly envy the situation that the Spanish economy is in.
When I went to the United Kingdom I said that the
between France and the United Kingdom was not enough. Gordon Brown suggested an
. For my part, I really think that it has been possible to emerge stronger from the financial crisis because the United Kingdom has clearly chosen Europe. Let me say that we have not got on so well in the past, and without going into internal politics, I mean that is the truth.
As for the United Kingdom and the banks, people often say to me: ‘Mr Brown has done more than you have’. Yes, but the difference is that, as the English banks were completely involved in the American system, there was a risk of bankruptcy that we did not experience to the same extent – this was a matter for debate between the Commission and ourselves – in the other Member States. We have to have the wisdom to wait a while to see how the implementation of the different plans evolves. I remain optimistic about Europe’s ability to work together.
Finally, one last point, you tell me to carry on, Mr Rasmussen. Yes, to carry on as I am! Well, I must reassure you on that. There is no risk.
Mr Poignant, the French Presidency is not perfect, certainly, nor is it a failure, and as for you, you are faithful to Mr Mitterrand, which is the perfect ‘neither … nor’. You therefore think neither good nor evil. Really what you are thinking is that if I have been successful it is because I had two good socialists … Well, never two without three, Mr Poignant: Jouyet, Kouchner ... I detect a certain envy in there somewhere! Seriously, however, I should like, if I may, to deny the assertions of all those who thought that there were structural disagreements between Germany and France. This is an opportunity for me to explain things, and I am saying this also to Mrs Marielle De Sarnez.
The Franco-German axis, the friendship between France and Germany, is not a choice: it is an absolute duty. Our two countries have been at the heart of the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. It is not a choice, not because I do not subscribe to it, but because it is a duty for the world and for Europe. We have to walk hand in hand. I am utterly convinced that it is a responsibility, Mr Poignant, that goes far beyond just Mrs Merkel, or myself, or formerly Mr Schröder or Mr Chirac: it is a historical reality. We cannot separate from each other, precisely because of what our history has been for the last century.
At the same time, however, while not wishing to offend anyone, I must say that the Franco-German axis cannot be of the same order in a Europe of 27 countries as in a Europe of six. In a Europe of six or nine, maybe perhaps twelve, if Germany and France reached an agreement, that was enough and all the others followed.
That is how it was, but that is not the Europe of today and that is why I called for reconstruction of this Franco-German axis, on a bilateral basis. We need it but we cannot treat the Franco-German axis as if there were still only 12 of us. I remember when Germany and France came to an agreement – it was not in my time – about a candidate for the Presidency of the Commission, it was the other one who left, because it gave an impression of arrogance. As a result, friendship between France and Germany is indispensable, but it does not exclude other agreements, or other friendships. That is the first thing I want to say because sometimes I have the impression that some people look at Europe through 30-year-old spectacles, when it has to be looked at in relation to what it will be in 30 years’ time.
The second thing is that Mrs Merkel strongly defends Germany’s interests. If she did not do so, who else would do it? We surely cannot criticise her for that. She did it with flair, she did it with force and she did it with determination. I too defend my country’s interests. Was that not what I was elected for?
Sometimes, then, we do not agree straightaway. What of it? That is perfectly normal. Is democracy or the sense of compromise impossible when it is Germany or when it is France? Yes I had to make concessions to Mrs Merkel; yes she had to make concessions to me. What of it? It is for the benefit of Germany. Just because it is Germany or just because it is France, should we not debate anything, should we not discuss anything? Our German friends were not very enthusiastic about the Union for the Mediterranean. There were misunderstandings. I resolved those misunderstandings by discussing them. Where is the problem?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"entente formidable"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples