Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law. IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE