Situations of fragility
The next item is the Commission statement on 'Towards an EU response to situations of fragility: engaging in difficult environments for sustainable development, stability and peace'.
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, since July 2007, the Commission and the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union have been working together closely to launch the process of preparing a more strategic and effective EU response to situations of fragility in partner countries.
This process should be pursued by future presidencies. The objective is not to label or classify countries, but to tailor their instruments and responses to specific situations. In these situations of fragility, there are major obstacles to poverty reduction. Institutional capabilities in such situations are very limited, with states unable to assume the functions of governance, or with the consequences of natural disasters, violent conflict, or a lack of political will on the part of the government regarding development objectives. In extreme cases, these situations can have an impact beyond the country's borders, affecting regional stability or even global security.
The idea of fragility is not new, though the international debate is relatively recent. Donors, partner countries and civil society have been aware for a long time of the need to be more effective in particularly unfavourable situations in order to meet the objectives of sustainable development.
Every situation is complex and different and requires a tailored response, in which diplomatic action, humanitarian aid, development cooperation, and security and crisis management intervention all play a part.
The effectiveness of the European Union's response requires a long-term commitment, but also the definition of clear objectives when taking action in a fragile country. The guiding principle should continue to be capability development and human security, within the perspective of sustainable development and poverty reduction.
Giving support to situations of fragility where this is to the detriment of successful countries should, however, be avoided. Commitments to strengthen aid therefore take centre stage again. The European Commission has presented a communication proposing a pragmatic approach for the European Union to engage more effectively in difficult environments for sustainable development, stability and peace.
This communication was sent to all the European Union institutions. The General Affairs Council on 19 and 20 November will adopt conclusions on this subject. It will invite the Commission to draw up a specific work plan for implementing the recommendations and the priority actions presented in the communication, the aim of which is to address situations of fragility more effectively by supporting the efforts made by the partner countries to create or restore the conditions necessary for their sustainable development.
2008 will be devoted to preparing the European Union's strategic approach to situations of fragility. This process requires the active participation of all the European Union institutions and all those working for development in the EU and the partner countries.
The European Parliament's contribution to this exercise is of great interest to the Commission, which is inviting it to get actively involved in this debate, that should make it possible to support an overall response strategy to situations of fragility and to contribute in this way to creating suitable conditions for sustainable development, stability, peace and democratic governance.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, it is always very useful to be able to debate such an important issue in front of a heaving Chamber of colleagues who are agog to hear what Parliament has to say on this very important matter. I am also very grateful to the Commissioner for having laid down the ground rules and his views on how we tackle this issue.
Fragility is a condition that has many, many parents. The first of course is the process of decolonisation when the colonial powers drew arbitrary lines on maps, which cut across all sorts of internal stable civil society functions and split countries into two or three or four, irrespective of their tribes or religious factions and so on. That induced a certain amount of instability.
Then there is a natural form of instability that fragile nations now experience: countries which are prone to floods; small island states that are open to only a single economy product. There are countries which are geographically unable to sustain themselves because of the way God has blessed them with very few attributes, countries which have desertification, starting to produce mass migrations of people.
There are 26 so-called fragile states in the world as we speak and the most vulnerable people in the world are facing catastrophic consequences, not through their own fault in some cases, but sometimes through bad governance, sometimes through internal conflict, sometimes through civil wars, sometimes through genocidal dictators as we found, not many years ago, in Sierra Leone and Liberia.
Now you can change a fragile state from being a fragile state to a post-fragile sustainable country, as we see happening in front of our eyes in Sierra Leone. But this requires effort; it requires commitment; it requires a long-term commitment, as the Commissioner said, to that country's economic growth. It requires a commitment of nation-building, an expression which I use advisedly in this Chamber because the concept of nation-building is something that my country, the United Kingdom, has long experience of, as have France and Spain and some other European countries. But it is wholly and utterly away from the knowledge of other emerging superpowers who have not, to put it bluntly, a clue how to punch their way out of a paper bag in terms of nation-building.
We need to be able to connect ourselves with the body of historic knowledge that is reposited in the consciousness of European nations, to help other nations who are taking a lead around the world in the process of nation-building. Had we done that, and had Prime Minister Blair done that, I think the situation in Iraq, for example, would have been completely different.
Is Iraq a fragile state? Yes it is, because it is unstable; the governance is not secure; there are insecurity problems. There are other countries in Africa which are very fragile - the Sudan, Somalia, small islands - as I said earlier all these require coming together with a body of knowledge that we already have and therefore I am very pleased indeed to be opening this debate this morning.
Thank you very much, Mr Deva. I am afraid you forget one factor in instability. When you arrive in those countries instability starts again.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to express my delight at this communication which - as you said, Commissioner - is indeed tinged with real pragmatism from the Commission, and which enables us today to debate a problem of concern not only to the citizens of the EU's partner countries in the south of the world, but also our own fellow citizens who often, quite legitimately, ask how effective the European Union's development aid is.
In this particular case, the essential message of our resolution can be summed up in one sentence and should attract support from everyone, beyond the political divisions. It is to propose setting up a simplified cooperation system that allows the Commission and Member States to supply the aid they have promised to partner countries in the throes of particularly grave crises more rapidly than they can today - and I will not dwell on these crises because Mr Deva has just explained them at length. Without this aid the populations of these countries see their chances of survival diminish each day. Once this aid has been approved, which is in itself no mean feat, the complexity and length of current procedures for delivering European aid can cause situations that are even more dramatic and directly harmful to the beneficiary populations.
Take the example of Burundi, a small country in which I chaired the parliamentary observation mission for the last elections two years ago, and to which I will have the pleasure of returning in a few days. The European Union has done a very important and remarkable job there, supporting the electoral and institutional democratisation process after more than ten years of bloody conflict. Once established, the institutions and the new democratically elected power were very quickly faced with reality and the needs of the population, in terms of health, education and agriculture, which had to be met as a matter of priority.
There is no lack of projects in these sectors, but for them to see the light of day, European aid is utterly decisive. It is not only decisive for meeting the urgent needs of the population, but also to enable the public authorities, which are still fragile, to begin a reconstruction process without which there is a major risk of seeing the country descend very quickly into chaos again. Two years on, Commissioner, the budgetary aid announced by the EU has still not arrived.
What is true for the Great Lakes region is also true for other regions of the world. That is the reason why, Madam President, subject to the clear definition of the conditions they have to meet to be able to receive it, all the countries in the world with which the European Union is cooperating and that are experiencing a serious situation of fragility should be able to rely on an exception system that guarantees rapid and effective intervention.
Madam President, I am pleased to be able to speak after hearing such remarkable experts and specialists, who have spent years grappling with this subject, and I include you among them, Madam President.
I would like to draw attention to the problem of the growing number of states recognised as unstable. Over the course of six years this number has almost doubled, from 14 to 26, so this is a very real problem, and one that is an increasing challenge for the European Union.
I would like to stress that over half of these unstable states are in sub-Saharan Africa, which highlights the need for us to give particular attention to that region of Africa, that region of the world.
I also think that strong words need to be said about the need to build the authority of governments in these countries. The African Union is right to point out that the problem of reconstruction is also a political issue, perhaps more so than a technical one. In view of this, the mechanisms of democracy and transparency are fundamental issues.
I fully agree with Mr Hutchinson, who spoke before me, about the need to simplify procedures so that our aid might be more rapid and more real.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Madam President, I also truly welcome the fact that this subject is being dealt with in this Chamber, because although it is true that there is not an exhaustive legislative definition of what a fragility state is, we do have many cases which, empirically, fall into that category. This afternoon we are, for example, discussing among other matters the case of Somalia.
This resolution therefore enables us to tackle some of the more serious problems that have to be faced in those contexts - for example, the fact that this fragility is frequently based on a situation of extreme poverty that tends to bring with it institutional collapse and insecurity at all levels.
In addition, it is also crucial to start from the principle that these states present a challenge in terms of development, and this means that we urgently need to define a coherent agenda based on the humanitarian principle of do no harm. This is the first principle, and it is an important lesson to learn from recent events regarding the approach taken by Zoe's Ark in Chad.
With regard to external action, in particular European action, in this type of context, this must be based on implementing programmes on the ground, which must be flexible and adaptable to changing needs and based on a strategy planned in the short, medium and long term. All too often we stop at measures that may be necessary in the short term, but which fundamentally lose sight of the medium and long-term consequences.
Finally, I must mention the importance of establishing a dual mechanism of accountability, in particular including an obligation for the recipient countries to be accountable, naturally, to those who have provided resources, funds and donations, but also to their own populations, whom they should and must protect and ensure the survival of. The donors should also guarantee that they are going to be accountable to these populations.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (PT) Madam President, there is no doubt that it is urgent to provide more and better humanitarian aid in an ever more unequal and unfair world where concentration of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the exploitation and misery of millions. There is no doubt that more and better cooperation for development is urgently needed in a world facing a new arms race and the increasing militarisation of international relations, led by the United States and its allies. It is for that very reason that we are seriously concerned about the attempts to make development aid conditional on security strategies intended in practice to achieve more or less concealed objectives of interference, plundering of resources and neo-colonialism.
An analysis of the international situation must not leave out or underestimate the external causes fomenting and exacerbating the contradictions which are so often at the root of the problems. We need only look at the very subjective list of what the World Bank considers to be fragile States. How many instances of external interference and aggression does that reflect?
We do indeed need an agenda for cooperation and development to respond to the most basic needs of millions of human beings, based on respect for national sovereignty and independence and peaceful solutions to international conflicts - an agenda which encourages the demilitarisation of international relations, which promotes equitable and fair economic relations and the cancellation of foreign debt paid for long ago, an agenda which overcomes the policies which are causing the profound injustices and inequalities, in order to build a fairer, more peaceful, more humane world of greater solidarity.
In fragile states the link between governance, development and security is paramount. The EU must determine strategic priorities for relations with those states with human security as the overall goal.
It is not enough to support government institutions. It is essential to promote the strengthening of parliamentary scrutiny, to support free and pluralist media, the independence of the judiciary and the empowerment of civil society, giving priority to women, vulnerable groups and minorities. That requires commitment on the part of the EU.
Somalia today tragically illustrates the aloofness of Europe. The causes of fragility that stir up violent conflict, exacerbating the incapacity of the state - bad governance, extreme poverty or violations of human rights, for example - must be broached in bilateral dialogue and often the Council, Commission and Member States fail to do that. The causes of fragility must be taken into account in defining strategies and in the globalisation of the EU's financial instruments. Development aid must be focused on people and direct financial support for governments should be considered only when there is proof of commitment to resolving conflicts, to building the democratic rule of law and to improving governance and the human security of the peoples.
Finally, and unfortunately this aspect is omitted from the Commission's Communication and the resolution we are to vote on, the EU must invest more, alongside DDR and SSR programmes, in controlling global transfers of light weapons, since they fuel armed conflicts which perpetuate the fragility of many states.
Member of the Commission. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the short but very comprehensive debate. Allow me to sum it up as follows: it basically reflected Parliament's support for the general position, for the Commission's general concept, for the general idea. Of course some individual issues arose during the debate and these can be discussed in the course of future debates. For example, there is the issue of light weapons transfers and many other ideas that, in my opinion, significantly enrich the general concept.
I have received a motion for a resolution submitted in accordance with Article 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.


Multiannual framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency for 2007-2012 (debate)
(FR) The next item is the report by Michael Cashman, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Decision of the Council implementing Regulation (EC) n° 168/2007 on the adoption of a multiannual framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency for 2007-2012 - C6-0322/2007 -.
A point of order here: could the Honourable Member please tell me which article of the Regulation he is referring to?
Mr President, on a point of order under Rule 171. Just now you told the House that 19 Members had sought to make speeches. Before lunch we were told that there were 14 Members. I know that when it comes to statistics, and particularly when there is no roll-call vote, things are a bit loose here, but could you explain the difference between those two figures?
(FR) It is difficult to give you an explanation here and now, but I shall do my best.
We receive requests to speak - and I have been in the chair on many occasions for explanations of vote - in real time. In all probability what happened was that when Mr Vidal-Quadras made his announcement there were 14 names on the rostrum before him, then, within seconds or minutes, other Members of the House approached the rostrum to tell the President that they wished to speak. That is undoubtedly why the figure increased from 14 to 19 in the interval between Mr Vidal-Quadras's announcement and my own of just a moment ago. It is, however, a very interesting point and we shall check the relevant rule.
Permit me now, if you will, to return to the Cashman report and to begin straight away with the Commission representative.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Parliament for the very constructive cooperation and support for the quick adoption of the multiannual framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency for the years 2007-2012.
I would especially like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, for his personal commitment on this file. The multiannual framework 2007-2012 as proposed by the Commission and discussed in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs will enable the Agency to work to the best of its capabilities. I would like to say here that I fully understand the reasoning behind each of the amendments proposed by the rapporteur. I am pleased to say that I can accept Amendment 1; Amendment 2 regarding the notion of ethnic minorities; Amendments 3, 4, 5, 8 and 13 (in part) regarding the notion of multiple discrimination; Amendment 15 regarding the notion of social exclusion and Amendment 16 - in particular as all these amendments reflect the compromise solutions found in discussions between the Presidency, the Commission and the rapporteur.
Regarding the other amendments, I cannot accept them for a number of legal and technical reasons which I will explain here very quickly. Some of the amendments do not comply with the basic regulation, namely Amendments 10, 11 and 18. In some cases, amendments go beyond the regulation, particularly Amendment 17. In some other cases they are in contradiction with the regulation, from my point of view of course, such as Amendment 10. Others do not correspond with the better regulation requirements, particularly Amendments 2, 7 and 13, as regards the adding of 'traditional national minorities and linguistic minorities' that are already covered by the regulation.
Some amendments are outside Community competence or the competence of the Agency, namely Amendments 14 and 15 (in part). Finally, Amendment 12 would significantly limit the scope of the areas to be dealt with by the Agency as laid down in Article 2 of our proposal.
One point concerning Amendment 6. I am not against the substance of the provision. However, the proposal for the multiannual framework is not, from my point of view, the best place to introduce general statements on the nature and definition of human rights.
This is best done in relevant international conventions and in the Charter. However, I will not oppose this amendment if both Council and Parliament are willing to accept it.
Finally, I cannot accept Amendments 7 and 9. On Amendment 7 the multiannual framework is designed to regulate obligations on European Institutions and/or the Member States to monitor compliance with all international human rights conventions to which the Member States are party.
On Amendment 9, a reference to a review of the multiannual framework before the five-year period is not necessary, given that Commission, Council and Parliament can always request to go outside the scope of Article 2 of the framework.
Generally speaking, the time-frame of five years was set up to prevent jeopardising the effectiveness of the work of the Agency, which needs time to plan its work and to deliver on it. The introduction of systematic reviews could risk undermining the work of the Agency.
Finally, in my view the establishment of the Agency has been a big success for the promotion of the respect of fundamental rights in the European Union. It has also been a success in terms of interinstitutional cooperation. Now we have to set the proper conditions for the agency to operate successfully and to prove its worth in the years to come.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I should like to thank Vice-President Frattini for those words.
If Parliament had codecision on this we would be in a much stronger position. I have to say to colleagues here today that I met with NGOs and civil society at the very beginning, as did other shadow rapporteurs, to see what we could do. It was quite clear to me at the very beginning that if I had my way I would have a list that was endless, because human rights are so important: they are paramount and are the very reason that the institutions were established so that we never got back to those conditions that created the Second World War and the appalling shadow that was cast across so many different peoples and so many different minorities.
However, the reality is that we are merely consulted, which is why I have had to take on a very difficult position. It is extremely difficult for me as a gay man not to want to include specifically homophobia. However, if I am to be consistent in the application of principle in that we need to bring on board that which is not covered, then I have to forego the very things that also my heart desires. So it has been difficult.
I am pleased to say that this report was adopted by 48 votes in favour, none against and 8 abstentions. That indicates that what we have here - although, indeed, there are some amendments which I did not personally support - are the wishes of the committee. I want to pay great tribute to the Portuguese Presidency and my colleague sitting here in the Chamber who worked very closely with me, who supported Parliament in order to try to achieve a position which both the Council and the Commission could support.
I am pleased that the Commissioner has listed nine out of the eighteen amendments. We are getting 50% support - of course, I want 100% support but I live in the real political world. I want the Agency, above all, to succeed. The origins of the Agency are the Charter of Fundamental Rights and all the international conventions on human rights that we have in common amongst the Member States.
However, there are some delegations, some politicians and some Member States who want the Agency to fail. They do not want it to be effective, and that is why I have been absolutely specific in the demands that we are making upon this Agency. I want it to succeed. I believe that the amendments that were adopted in committee will help it to succeed, while not placing upon the Agency undue demands which will go beyond the resources, both human and financial.
There have been suggestions amongst some of the women's groups that this does not go far enough, but we have introduced the gender perspective and taken account of the Gender Institute. Of course, there must be complementarity, but we must not have duplication because, again, that would waste the resources.
So let me finish and let me listen - arguably the most important thing and one of the most difficult things to do in politics. Let me listen to the debate, but I will not be able to support the amendments that will be placed before the plenary tomorrow for the simple principle: I said at the beginning I could not take on board a whole range of amendments and to change that attitude now would be to go back on the agreement that I reached with the shadows. Of course minority languages are important, of course other areas are important, but there is nothing more important than an Agency for Fundamental Rights which is successful in the work that we set it to do.
draftsman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the establishment at the beginning of last year of the Agency for Fundamental Rights is a very important and necessary step towards the protection and support of fundamental human rights both within and outside the European Union. Unfortunately, the long-term framework has not been yet accepted and some of the personnel issues have yet to be resolved. The Committee on Foreign Affairs is therefore asking for this situation to be rectified as soon as possible. Where the activity of the Agency outside the European Union is concerned, the Committee on Foreign Affairs supports the measures adopted in order to prevent duplication of work and to secure the necessary coordination of activities with international organisations operating in this field: primarily the Council of Europe, the UN and the OSCE. We are also of the opinion that dialogue on human rights is crucial for the relationship between the Union and developing countries. We therefore welcome the fact that the Agency is open to the participation of candidate countries. Finally, we presume that as soon as the Reform Treaty comes into force and the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is created, the Agency will provide every assistance to this representative in his or her activities .
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (HU) Thank you for the floor, Mr President. I am delighted that we have reached the adoption of the framework programme for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, and I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work and the willingness to cooperate that he has demonstrated throughout what has been a formidable task.
It is now equally important for the institutions, the Member States and the citizens of the EU that the Agency start its proper work as soon as possible, since it was officially created in Vienna on 1 March last year, but still does not have a structure, mandate or leadership fit for purpose.
It is therefore very important that the framework programme be adopted now. We have confronted such a complex problem here, when on the one hand we could list countless questions of human rights and fundamental legal questions, yet on the other hand we have to consider what would really make this Agency fit for purpose today.
As I see it, my fellow Member, Mr Cashman, has tried to put this opinion together so that it meets the two criteria above at the same time: that it can deal flexibly with the human rights problems that affect us all in a sensitive way, and keep the Agency fit for purpose at the same time.
I feel that the Parliament fully supports these proposals, and - despite listening carefully to Mr Frattini saying what is unacceptable to him and the Commission - I sincerely hope that the Council understands our many questions, since they could be the keys to how the Agency should carry out its work so as to focus on real problems.
The matter of linguistic minorities and national minorities was omitted from the original list but is included in the proposal. I consider this to be very important, since we are seeing now that these problems crop up again and again, and the Union will indeed confront them; it has to get involved. I therefore hope that this Agency will be able to pay attention to them. We will not be dealing with a 'paper tiger', but with a real working institution. Thank you for your attention.
for the PSE group. - Mr President, the Fundamental Rights Agency must at last begin to accomplish its important task. This is why the rapporteur, whom I congratulate, has been compelled to limit the amendments to the proposed programme in order to facilitate a rapid interinstitutional agreement on this important issue. It would of course be preferable if the subject areas included social rights, and there were explicit references to questions of human trafficking, and to the protection of the private sphere and human dignity within the framework of the measures taken against terrorism. But the door remains open.
Today I shall focus in particular on an important amendment which I and some other colleagues submitted, an amendment which was passed and which explicitly mentions effective, independent administration of justice, including the rights of the accused and suspects.
Mr President, when public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is undermined, the basis of our democratic societies is undermined, and for this reason, very rightly, the responsibilities of the Agency included this dimension from the outset. At the same time, however, we tend to forget that each person is innocent until proved guilty. The pillorying of the accused by the media to boost ratings, or even by governments and officials for the sake of short-lived political gains, flagrantly violates this principle. And suspects, Mr President, - especially in this day and age when it turns out that so many fundamental principles can be bent in the name of combating terrorism, - cannot be abducted, mistreated and deprived of their fundamental rights without consequences. If anything can teach us this, then surely it's Guantanamo, whose sixth anniversary has just passed with, regrettably, hardly anyone noticing the fact.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all let me say that I have a great deal of respect for the rapporteur, Mr Cashman. I always regard him as a great ally in the fight to defend fundamental rights. Where I differ from the rapporteur, therefore, is not on the substance, the content, but on the strategy. It might be a strategy to relinquish a couple of priorities in exchange for support from the Council, but is the Council offering us enough for us to abandon what we want? Not in my opinion, and that being so I prefer just to state my position clearly.
The ALDE amendments propose four additional priorities, namely homophobia, privacy, counter-terrorist policy and fundamental rights, and discrimination against the Roma, and right now makes these the four main areas in which Member States continually breach human rights. The Fundamental Rights Agency should have become a watchdog to keep the Member States on the right path, but unfortunately it has not managed to do that. At any rate, it has already become a toothless tiger. As far as I am concerned, and certainly also when I listened to what Commissioner Frattini has just said, the European Parliament, as the most important partner of the Fundamental Rights Agency, should simply set its own clear priorities.
Quite honestly, if we are counting on support from or agreement with the Council, I wonder anyway where the Council is today. I am afraid, therefore, that I very much agree with the rapporteur on the content - I am going to consult in my group - but I regret to say that I cannot support the strategy.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the Fundamental Rights Agency was formed on the basis of the Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. This change could have been the precursor of an improvement. The Centre in Vienna was known for its unreliability and the ease with which complaints about racism and anti-semitism were abused - this was the case, for example, in 2001 and 2005 with regard to Radio Maryja, the Republican League and my own country, Poland.
If the new institution follows the rapporteur's recommendations, it will soon be repeating the old mistakes. The proposal to go over and above the thematic areas, the flexibility or the so-called proactive measures - these are just quotes from the justification provided for this report - this is nothing other than a green light for the agency to act in an uncontrolled manner, dictated to by extreme ideologies, and outside of international law. None of this would really matter, after all this would not be the only case where European money is being wasted, but a system for the protection of human rights that lacks the framework of international law, and which is left to professional anti-racists, loses the most important asset in its possession - credibility.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, we voted for the report in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. We shall approve it again here, although we subscribe to much of the criticism voiced in the chamber and even by the rapporteur himself. One of my points has already been raised by the rapporteur. Although the Fundamental Rights Agency will continue to address sex discrimination, issues such as homophobia, unfortunately, are not part of its remit. In the light of the debates we have had within Europe and the present state of discussions, it is regrettable that we were unable to arrive at that compromise with the Council and the Commission.
There are other points to be made. We tabled amendments in committee, but unfortunately all of them were rejected. I only intend to refer to a few of these. Discrimination against the Romany people would have been an important problem to address, as would the protection of personal privacy. Data protection would have been another important point. Here in Europe we have attained a certain standard, which we must uphold within the Union for the sake of our credibility. It is, however, important, not least in the light of our experience in combating terrorism, to examine the extent to which the fight against terrorism can be reconciled with fundamental rights. This is another matter that would be worth including in the remit of the Fundamental Rights Agency.
Everyone agrees that the Fundamental Rights Agency should become operational as soon as possible, but we have not even managed to agree on a director. There is therefore room for a degree of doubt as to whether the Agency will actually be able to perform its functions. The good news is that there will not be many more of these procedures. When the revised EU Treaty takes effect from 2009, we shall have other processes through which the involvement of the European Parliament in these debates will be channelled.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (GA) Mr President, I welcome Mr Cashman's report on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The members of Committee on Civil Liberties have done sterling work on this important subject. I congratulate them as well as the rapporteur.
But I particularly welcome the improvements whereby discrimination as regards traditional languages and minorities is to be encompassed within the Agency's specific responsibilities. I call on Members to back these reforms tomorrow.
The United Nations has declared this year, 2008, International Year of Languages. The European Union has to participate in this venture, and we too must follow suit.
I personally have a special interest in this matter. I am continuing to work at EU level, to demand the resources necessary for Irish as an EU working language, and at constituency level, to support the campaign for an Irish Language Act, a piece of legislation sorely needed in Northern Ireland to protect the rights of Irish-speakers.
Those rights cannot be exercised at present. They will be available if they are enshrined in binding legislation and if a body such as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is able to challenge my compatriots and others in the matter of discrimination based on language.
(NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be voting wholeheartedly against this report, because I see the Agency as the European watchdog for the political correctness that which is gaining more and more of a hold over Europe. Whilst the Agency claims that it is going to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, it is actually a threat to some of our most fundamental rights and freedoms and the principle of subsidiarity.
The spirit of political correctness that haunts Europe means that freedom of expression has to be subordinated to the demands of a particular religion, namely Islam, which does not accept any criticism.
The European Monitoring Centre for Racism, to which this Agency is intended to be the successor, very deliberately equated the legitimate expression of views opposed to immigration and the negative aspects of Islam with racism. The Centre also maintained that Islamophobia is a new form of discrimination and that, following the clashes over the Danish cartoons, there should be anti-blasphemy laws. When a study that had been commissioned showed that violence against Jews in Europe was mainly perpetrated by young Muslims, the director of the Centre promptly consigned it to the bin.
Very few people in this House seem to realise yet that freedom of expression is the supreme fundamental right and that progress in history has always been driven by progress in freedom of thought. Europe would never have been the centre of the world at one time without the freedom to be able to tell the truth bluntly and uninhibitedly, however much it might offend. This report and this Agency set that principle on a slippery slope.
(ES) Mr President, the establishment of a multiannual framework for the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency is an extraordinarily important matter for those of us who believe that basic rights are part of Europeans' DNA. Therefore I should like to join with the rapporteur and other spadkers who have said 'onward' with the multiannual framework 'onward' with the Agency's work.
I also believe that this report, as Mrs Gál, whom I support as spokesperson for my group, has said, is a balanced report which strives to be productive without being over-ambitious.
Realistic, that I believe is the expression the rapporteur used. As the report is realistic I would like to ask Commissioner Frattini, my good friend Franco Frattini, for a little more support. For the European Commission only to accept nine of the 18 amendments we have tabled seems to me to be a poor effort, and an effort, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, is what is required on a matter of such importance as this.
I had the good fortune and honour to be President of Parliament's delegation to the Convention which drew up the Charter and am also equally honoured to chair the ATD Fourth World Intergroup, and we have succeeded on one amendment, number 15: to include combating social exclusion and poverty among the Agency's objectives. Why? Because anyone who is socially excluded, living in abject poverty, ultimately does not enjoy any basic rights and that is why we are of the view that it would be an important political signal to our fellow citizens for amendment 15 to be viewed more synmpathetically than it has been by you, Mr Vice-President of the Commission. Ultimately, we MEPs represent the people and the people are asking us to concern ourselves with the least well-off as well.
Therefore, Commissioner, I hope this debate will help you understand the importance of moving from accepting nine amendments to accepting more, and to support the European Parliament's position on this matter.
(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Nine months on from the ceremonious handover of the Fundamental Rights Agency, it is no joy for me to speak about the fact that the institution has not been able to start work, and still has no management.
At least this week the multiannual framework programme will be adopted by Parliament, for which I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman. The multiannual framework programme is crucial for the Agency's work and for how effective it will be in monitoring fundamental rights and formulating what to do. The trilateral agreement process for creating the founding charter left open some routes down which it is our duty to continue.
For example, the statement by the Council wanted to use political strength to achieve the possibility for the Agency to investigate the enforcement of human rights in the area of cooperation with the police and judiciary at the Agency's request. It is important for Member States and the Union to avail themselves of the opportunities they have until this is incontrovertibly the duty of the Agency, after the entry into force of the Reform Treaty.
Likewise, it is our joint responsibility that the individual and community rights of national and ethnic minorities are rendered unquestionable, not only by prohibiting discrimination but also through the requirement for positive law enforcement. In principle, the recognition of social rights as human rights cannot be questioned either, since there is no human dignity without basic security.
It is a cliché, but true nonetheless, that every decision is worth however much of it is implemented. Mr Vice-President Frattini's words have cast a little doubt, but nonetheless I hope that the Agency will be consistent in protecting human rights.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to take the opportunity to make two basic points. The first is that I fervently hope and urgently appeal for immediate action to appoint the director of this Fundamental Rights Agency as soon as its work programme has been adopted, for the whole purpose of establishing an agency is that it should be made fully functional as soon as possible.
My second basic point is that I wish to use this discussion to call once again for an appraisal of the performance and utility of all agencies. As a matter of fact, I am not convinced that all agencies work in the way we wish or that they must exist for all eternity; on the contrary, I firmly believe that there are some parallel structures and that it would certainly be possible to dispense with some agencies without anyone noticing their absence or being any the worse for it. I should like to ask you when the Commission intends to launch such an evaluation.
(PL) Mr President, while congratulating the rapporteur Michael Cashman, I would like to make one comment, namely: during the sittings of the LIBE committee we discussed in detail whether the Human Rights Agency will or will not be doing the same work as the Council of Europe. We came to the conclusion that it will not, but I have the impression that we envy the Council of Europe the fact that it carries such weight, which allows it to apply a specific legal system.
It seems to me that the Fundamental Rights Agency, despite the conditions and the competencies that it possesses, should base itself strongly on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This should give it the clear understanding that it too is a guardian of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also for those citizens, those Member States, who have not accepted the Charter of Fundamental Rights in full. I believe that this is very important and I also believe that the Human Rights Agency should move in this direction with our assistance, with the support of the European Parliament.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank everyone who took the floor for their suggestions and contributions.
First of all, the European Union should be, and should be seen by citizens to be, not only the best defender but also the best promoter of fundamental rights. By this I mean the rights of groups and communities as well as the rights of individuals. That is a very important approach.
I also feel that, following the proclamation of the Charter and the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, the Agency should become the most effective European instrument in this field. To this end, I would like to see Parliament organising the hearing of the candidates short-listed for the post of director as soon as possible, so that the Agency can start working to the best of its capacities.
I fully agree with the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, that we have to let the Agency start working now. Overburdening it with too many tasks would risk making the Agency a body that appears to be strong, but which in practice is incapable of acting with the required speed.
Finally, I am aware of the concerns expressed by many of you, and can promise you that, well before the end of the five-year period, I would be ready to make full use of the Commission's powers to request the Agency to go beyond the scope of Article 2, namely in the field of justice and security cooperation.
One final word: I am sympathetic to what my friend, Mr Méndez de Vigo, has said, and will look closely at his suggestions, particularly as regards Amendment 15, in order to try to meet the expectations expressed concerning a European strategy against poverty.
I would also repeat that I am prepared to accept Amendment 6, even if I do not agree with it in principle. I hope that my trying to meet your expectations will make Mr Cashman happy.
(FR) Thank you, Commissioner. It would seem that the House is appreciative.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for relenting on the very important issue of Amendment 6, which states 'All human beings are born equal and therefore human rights are indivisible and inviolable'. Can I thank colleagues for their contributions, and can I just tell you that, when one of the non-attached Members states that they are going to vote against me, when those extremists within Parliament vote against me and against my report, my heart fills with joy and my brain tells me that we have got it absolutely right. Because there should be no extremism when it comes to the defence of human rights, except to be extremely defensive of human rights.
I would say to my good friend Sophia in 't Veld that of course I agree with her, but I believe that the issue of the Roma, privacy and homophobia are already covered. Indeed, the Roma would be covered under discrimination based on ethnicity and race. I would say to my colleague Mr Lambrinidis that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights gives us the area in which we can operate on the basis of privacy, preventing trafficking and dealing with social exclusion. Ms Gál said it was absolutely right that it is about the workability of the Agency and that is what we have to face.
That is why I have included multiple discrimination. We must remember that we are not dealing solely with the areas that they can cover. These are thematic areas based on the objective foundations which are the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the international conventions, which all of the Member States have in common.
To my great friend Mr Cem Özdemir - çok teşekkür ederim! - I would say, on data protection, yes, it is covered. Also, we have the data protection supervisor and we have data protection directives, and the last thing we want is duplication.
It is interesting and we should celebrate. The Angelilli report is coming up. It is an own-initiative report, yet here we have an absolute commitment - not an own-initiative, not a request - that the rights of the child be covered under the Agency which protects fundamental rights. Therefore, I congratulate the House. I urge it to vote with me. Let us not bring in more, let us not dilute, let us be focused, let us get the job done - and Mr President, save your gavel for another time!
(SK) I would like to protest strongly against what Mr Cashman has just said: I belong to the Group of non-attached Members and I would like to say that in the past, when I was a member of the Council of Europe, I drew up a report on the ban on child labour and I also took part in the preparation of another report on the rights of the child. That is why I strongly protest against the comments by the rapporteur, who said that he does not care whether anyone from the Group of non-attached Members will be voting against him.
(FR) Mr Cashman, please, to reply personally on comments that were received as a personal attack.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I was not, of course, thinking of the Honourable Member when I made my comment.
I referred generally to the non-attached Members, but specifically to the comments made by Mr Dillen, which I believe are extremist comments. But in no way did I mean to offend the Honourable Member, whose record speaks for itself.
(FR) I can confirm, at least with regard to the French interpretation, that the comment was made in relation to extremists, as opposed to non-attached Members. The rapporteur made a clear distinction.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 January 2008.


European Council meeting of 21-22 June 2007  Activity report of the German Presidency (continuation of debate)
The next item is the continuation of the joint debate on
the European Council report and Commission statement: European Council meeting of 21-22 June 2007 and
the Council statement: activity report of the German Presidency.
(DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate shows just how powerful the European idea is and how much it unites us at times of crisis, even across party lines, giving us the strength to say what needs to be said. I am a Christian Democrat, but I should like to express my unreserved support for the words of my fellow Member, the Social Democrat, Martin Schulz. I should like to support every sentence. As a German, I recall the final speech that the French President, François Mitterand, made to this Parliament in 1995. He said: nationalism leads to war. This is Europe's strength, which we must preserve through thick and thin: a Europe that defends peace prosperity and social security.
Above all, however, I should like to thank the Council Presidency and you personally, Mrs Merkel. You faced a mammoth task and you succeeded. Not all of our hopes have been realised, but the substance of the proposals has been maintained both in climate and energy policy and where the reform Treaty is concerned. You have succeeded in extending Parliament's rights, ensuring that European law continues to take precedence, strengthening subsidiarity in many areas, clarifying the delimitation of competences and much more besides. Questions have also been asked about the principle of competition. We will have to take a closer look at the implications.
Overall I believe that the German Presidency has been successful on the two most important points: it has been successful in implementing many initiatives in the ongoing programme, and it has cooperated in exemplary fashion with the European Parliament. For this too, I should like to thank you personally, Dr Merkel, together with all the members of the German Government and the German Representation.
(Applause)
(DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Well done, Mrs Merkel, warm congratulations! You have fulfilled your obligations as President of the Council. The European Parliament had asked you to convene an Intergovernmental Conference and to resume the European Union's journey towards a constitution, a journey that has brought us peace and prosperity that now offers the globalised world a model of democracy and solidarity. After a two-year period of reflection, the majority of the states and citizens came out in favour of forging ahead towards Europe's future. Despite many abrogations, which I hope will not upset the EU's cohesion, we have helped those who had difficulties with the treaty.
We now have to prepare a mandate for this reform treaty, and we believe that is a good thing. It contains a clear commitment to the principles, values and objectives of the EU. In my opinion, the legally binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be enshrined in the treaty immediately after the preamble. The extension of codecision and qualified majority voting are also positive aspects.
I nevertheless regret that clarity and transparency have been lost. The symbols, the flag and the anthem also bear witness to the joy and freedom in Europe that Beethoven and Schiller emphasised.
I can assure you that we will continue to use these symbols and hold them up with genuine pride.
In this conviction, President-in-Office, we will now in the Intergovernmental Conference work together with the national parliaments and civil society to strengthen the European Union constitutionally.
We will continue to fight on this road, which Walter Hallstein described as constructio continua, and which Jean Monnet spoke of as 'step by step'. And like sherpas, step by step, we will climb the Himalayas.
Thank you very much, Mr Barón Crespo.
(DE) President-in-Office, Mr President, my sincere congratulations on your excellent work, Madam Chancellor. You have achieved a very good result, you have fulfilled expectations. That is no great surprise to the German liberals, because even before the Bundestag elections we were convinced you would make a good leader; I am just saying this for the benefit of Mr Schulz, who said so in effusive terms today, but better late than never.
Before the German Presidency began, the Free Democrats in the European Parliament had urged the at the time still very hesitant Federal Government to set an ambitious target regarding the constitutional treaty. We are therefore pleased that at the end of your presidency we not only have a timetable, but that the contents have been agreed as well. However, the price that had to be paid for that is extremely high. Names have been changed, longer time periods set, derogations allowed. With the Charter of Fundamental Rights in particular that is a real disaster. The so-called reform treaty is more complex and less transparent. A minority has had its way at the majority's expense and the idea of Europe has suffered a severe blow as a result.
Whether the decisions that were taken in Brussels in the middle of the night will now actually be implemented remains an open question. There is no guarantee that they will. The Intergovernmental Conference must meet first and then things will not get moving until ratification begins in the 27 countries. Everything is therefore still open. The outcome of the German Presidency is therefore a fairly realistic reflection of the current mood within the EU. It is not abysmal, but it is nothing to celebrate either. What we have is the remote Europe of summits, not the close Europe of citizens. In view of the difficulties that would have made an outcome almost impossible, the Presidency has taken us a good step forwards. More would have been impossible.
Mrs Merkel, you have said how you would like Europe's citizens to remember the year 2007 in 50 years' time. I would like to add one hope to that: it would please me very much if in 2057 - and I might just live so long - all Europeans were to see the wonderful sentence of the Berlin Declaration 'we have united for the better' not as a decision taken in a back room but as something they experience every day. That would be a tremendous success for your Presidency. My sincere thanks once again!
(Applause)
A Uachtaráin, A Uachtaráin in Oifig na Comhairle, A Uachtaráin an Choimisiúin, comhghairdeachas leis an Seansailéir Merkel agus leis na daoine go léir i rialtas na Gearmáine.
First of all I should like to say that, when we speak of the results of the last week's summit, so much time and effort is given to reported emotions in the media or to the interpretation of what one person said to another, whereas the reality should be that we celebrate the success of the ability of all the leaders of all the Member States of the European Union to follow the leadership given by the German Chancellor, the President-in-Office, Angela Merkel, in finding and charting a way forward for the future development of the European Union.
In particular, because of the sensitivities that are involved in so many areas, whether it is the issue of votes in the Council, the rights of national parliaments or codecision in the area of justice and home affairs, these are fundamental points that are of national importance to those countries and it would be wrong for any leader of any government to fail to put forward their concerns with regard to those areas.
However, despite the hot wind that blows around many of these summits, success was achieved and it was achieved because the core principles of the European Union - i.e. compromise, consensus, understanding and tolerance - were brought together under your great stewardship, Chancellor Merkel.
The other areas in which the German Presidency has succeeded over the last six months are ones that we will benefit from in the future - and I say 'we' not just to mean those of us in Parliament: we as citizens and consumers within the European Union will be able to benefit from the work you have done.
(DE) Madam Chancellor, you have accomplished a hard task in difficult times. Thank you.
Apologies for my German!
(DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance I would like to underline once again what the chairman of my group has already said: it was a great weight off our minds when the outcome of the summit became known, and we shared your relief and your pleasure one hundred percent. We were not surprised at Mr Prodi's disappointment either, however, because during this summit it of course became clear how everything was touch and go and what national egoisms actually threaten Europe.
In the days that followed - and in fact even during the summit itself - it struck me from reports and interviews about this difficult situation that in the light of this loss of further integration, which was also the subject of the summit, many people actually began to think positively about Europe again. Basically, this is something quite simple: you only really understand what you have had when it is taken away from you. Sometimes you only realise when it is too late, but this time it happened just in time. I am extremely grateful for your negotiating skill, because I believe you were able to play very skilfully on simple matters such as how people tick and work in this Europe that is bequeathed to us.
There is also something I would like, however. You have succeeded in bringing people closer to Europe again. I would also like to see this transparency, the public nature of the summit, in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. We should not allow this distance to occur and shut people out again. I believe that would even help us in Poland, where we have the support of 80% of the population. I thank you and wish you much success for the future!
(DE) Mr President, like many on the Left in Europe, I cannot approve of anything that encourages nationalism and makes it even more difficult to use the European Union's resources to solve social, ecological and global problems. I am therefore a supporter of European integration aimed at a federal European Union with of course a federal constitution, but one with other principles, other priorities and other objectives.
I, too, owe you my respect, Mrs Merkel. You have succeeded in giving a broad public the impression that the Brussels compromise is your masterstroke. In many respects, however, the compromise is a continuation of the same old things. It brings no major change in policy, only a seemingly better design.
The rejection of the draft constitution in France and the Netherlands at the time was rooted not in fear of a superstate but in fear of a Europe that was not a social Europe, and you have probably done nothing to allay that fear with the compromise reached in Brussels, the half measures, the postponed problems and the jostling for power we saw over the weighting of votes.
That is why we continue to demand referenda in the EU Member States - on this treaty too. There is absolutely no reason to fear that if, as the most recent surveys show, the majority of Europe's citizens are in favour of Europe. If this treaty is a good treaty, there is also a good chance that the majority of the population will support it.
- (SK) Madam Chancellor, I too would like to join the ranks of those who have been congratulating you, and who appreciate the agreement you have achieved over the question of Europe's future.
The Treaty establishing the Constitution may have been signed in Rome with great fanfare by the Heads of State, but the period which came next proved that these Heads of State had simply made a pleasant excursion for the purposes of signing a meaningless piece of paper. Their signatures did not have the backing of a popular vote, as became apparent later in the sorrowful period of ratifications and referenda in various Member States.
This period revealed all of Europe's common weaknesses. For that reason alone your success in the negotiations and your skills in achieving compromise deserve high regard.
Madam Chancellor, it is for you that the fanfares should be heard today. After the signing, I believe that our efforts as MEPs will be motivated by a vision of cooperation, and not a struggle between the old 15 and the new Member States. I am sure we will succeed in weeding out each and every point of ambiguity in the Treaty. Finally, I would like to wish you a very pleasant holiday - because you certainly deserve it.
Mr President, Chancellor, President Barroso, I am not going to try my German out today. Others have done it much better than I could. As the German Presidency comes to an end, I start by congratulating the Chancellor on her very successful pursuit of the climate change agenda over the past six months. The European Council Agreement in March regarding targets for a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, compared to 1990, was a historic one and we in the British Conservative Party particularly support this initiative very strongly.
As to the European Council last weekend, we have heard many different interpretations about the outcome of the Summit. In the United Kingdom, reactions to the outcome have not, of course, been universally supportive. Prime Minister Blair, who leaves 10 Downing Street today, maintains that the draft reform Treaty bears little resemblance to the constitutional text that preceded it. Yet many of his fellow Heads of Government have contradicted him: the Irish Taoiseach and Finland's Europe Minister have said so, for instance - indeed the latter has said that there is nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed. So when our Prime Minister says that the two cannot be readily compared, I think the British people can be forgiven for feeling doubtful about what the British Government has actually signed. As Mr Blair promised the people of Britain a referendum in his last election manifesto, I really do believe it is incumbent upon his successor, Gordon Brown, to uphold that pledge.
Chancellor, I would also like to have one area of clarification on the point about the wide reports that the pursuit by the EU of free and undistorted competition has been undermined in the draft mandate for the IGC. I also hear, however, that a protocol has now been annexed to make clear that the Union is indeed totally committed to competition and free markets. There are reports that the German Finance Minister was himself concerned at the change. He is quoted as saying, 'I see this with a certain scepticism. If things go on like this, I see a risk'. To many British people, the internal market and a genuinely competitive economy form a vital basis for their support for Britain's membership of the Union, and they would rightly be concerned at any attempt to undermine that. I would be most grateful if the Chancellor could give reassurances to me on that point.
(FR) Mr President, it is true that it is difficult to resist the temptation to congratulate the Chancellor, and, I may add, I am not resisting it. Mrs Merkel, I congratulate you, even though I will remain more doubtful of the future treaty itself. At the end of the day, however, the reform of the treaties was at a standstill, Europe was stuck in a rut, its unity had been tested, and you gave it another chance.
The agreement passed on 23 June in Brussels is a complicated compromise, one that was reached after much effort in a Council that is marked more by the national tensions of some than by the universal sharing of the European spirit; a compromise reached at the expense of the ridiculous relinquishment of the EU symbols and of the appalling opt-out on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, this is at least an agreement that has come at a time when Europe needs to affirm its unity and its desire to move forward so as to meet the citizens' expectations and to rise to the challenges it faces in the world and within Europe. Every opportunity must therefore be given to the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference.
As for the treaty itself, we will be able to give a definitive judgment on it only after we have seen the final text that will be derived from it. Doubts remain, but the mandate does at least have the virtue of taking up the institutional innovations that were contained in the first part of the draft constitution and that have scarcely been challenged, even in countries in which the 'No' vote prevailed in the referendum. I am referring to the enhanced powers of the European Parliament, to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to the new majority decision-making rules and to the shift to unanimity on a number of issues and, therefore, from this point of view, I hope that the outcome will make it possible for the progress contained in the draft Constitution to be confirmed.
Having said that, there are two points that I should like to highlight as being important to our group and that concern the European Union's social dimension. On the one hand, there was an article on the horizontal social clause and, on the other, an article providing a legal basis for the adoption of a directive on services of general economic interest. On these two points, the mandate of the Intergovernmental Conference remains vague. We will be very vigilant when it comes to ensuring that, after having renounced the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Member States gathered within the IGC do not further undermine these two possible advances in the social dimension of the European treaties.
President-in-Office, thank you for bringing some real politics to the European Council. In three days' time you will be free of the Presidency and be able to advance German policy with great self-confidence across the European stage. Could you assure us that Germany will always fight to combat the version of pick-and-choose Europe that is Tony Blair's sad legacy? My view is that it is sensible now to put into practice the closer cooperation revisions that we see inside the Treaty.
You spoke of the African proverb which says that you go faster by yourself, but you go further with others. The problem is that if you stick to the British Government's approach, we will simply continue to go around in circles. Show the way forward, break out of the corral, and the more timid and conservative partners will follow.
- PL Mr President, Chancellor, I would like to begin by commenting on the speech given by Mr Schulz, who has presumed to lecture and offend the democratically elected government of Poland, whose stance in these negotiations is even supported by the opposition, and therefore enjoys the support of the vast majority of the Polish people, which Mr Schulz has decided to affront. This is something this House cannot approve of.
As far as the German Presidency is concerned, I would like to say that right from the outset its aim has clearly been to put the European Community's affairs in order. Unfortunately it has made its priority the resurrection of the Constitutional Treaty which had already been rejected in referendums in France and Holland. In spite of this, its greatest success has been to convince the heads of 27 governments and states to agree to sign the watered-down version of the treaty.
It is, however, the style of the negotiations that has aroused concern, taking as it does the form of blackmail against states with a diverging point of view. Let us hope that this will not become the norm in relations between EU Member States. I would like to take this opportunity to ask President Merkel what the legal status of the Constitutional Treaty is in Germany, where it was not signed by the president, and whether it is true that when votes are counted in the German Bundesrat, they use a variant of the equal influence system - the very system that was so vigorously attacked during the summit.
Mr President, you have described the new Treaty as retaining the substance of the Constitution. Chancellor Merkel agreed with that today. Commissioner Wallström said that it was essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution, and governments across Europe have described it as 99% the same. You and they, Mr President, are right!
Yet there is one leader - correction, erstwhile leader, Tony Blair - who pretends it is something totally different. Why? So that he can con the people of the United Kingdom out of the referendum he promised them because he knows he cannot win it. The shameless dissembling of the British Government, however, will not deceive the British people, because we know that when a Treaty looks like a constitution, when it talks like a constitution, and when it would walk us like a constitution into a stronger stranglehold of control from Brussels, then it is a constitution, howsoever you might deceptively describe it. That is why the people of the United Kingdom still demand a referendum, and anything less would be a cheat.
Mr President, I have brought a cube with me, which shows the flag of the European Union - the 12 stars. It was manufactured in Germany, invented by a Hungarian and consists of 27 pieces. I have brought it just to remind us how difficult this Treaty is to put together. Just like the cube, it should bear the symbols, it should have a message and be a keystone and a foundation for our joint European building, but, at the same time, it is made up of 27 pieces. So this is how I congratulate the German Presidency on putting these 27 pieces together again, because there are big and small pieces - not every piece is the same. This cube is not always so beautiful, because you can see the division lines. However, from now on this could be kept as a good foundation stone.
I should like to add that the word 'fragile' should be written on its box. All of us in the European Parliament and in the Council have to take great care to keep this cube together. I am very happy that Europe is finally trying to swallow what it could not swallow for several years. In that sense, it makes Europe stronger, because we all need something that could be a foundation stone. We need a common foreign policy, and joint action on fighting climate change and on guaranteeing human rights and minority rights without double standards. From that point of view, I really appreciate that a reference to minorities has not been omitted from the reform Treaty. However, I also deplore the missing elements, especially the reference that people wanted to leave out of the Treaty - the symbols of the European Union, the stars, the flags - or any reference to Christianity. This should not be done.
Let us keep this cube together, and we must be careful because it is fragile.
(Applause)
Thank you, József Szájer! When we met for the first time, you gave me a piece of barbed wire with the Hungarian flag as a sign that the division of Europe had been overcome. That was a very beautiful symbol, and I have never forgotten it.
(DE) Mr President, I would like to take up what the previous speaker said. Perhaps we ought to show the flag more often now and play the anthem more often to show that these things cannot be lost, because they exist.
We have fought for the substance to be preserved. It has been, and I believe that is a mark of success. More has been lost, however, than just the name and the symbols. It is after all clear that the reform treaty is something different from the constitutional treaty, because the vision of a political union, not only of a Europe of states but a citizens' Europe, is now even further from our grasp and it will be a long time before we can make a fresh attempt at a European constitution. On this point, Europe's opponents have won and the European federalists have lost. We must be quite clear about that.
I also think that the simplified treaty is sadly still a complicated treaty. There is a loss of transparency. The citizens will not be able to identify so easily with the new product as they did with the Constitutional Treaty. Thirdly, I am concerned that distrust between the Member States, and also some Member States' distrust of the EU and its institutions, has grown. They all want to join, but they do not all want to join in. We will be watching very closely to see whether there are not only different speeds, but also different classes. Some evidently want to be second class. If that is what they want, then let them. They should not be able to block the others. That was an important stage that takes us forward. But it is not the end of the reform process, and the new treaty will for the first time allow this Parliament to make its own proposals for further reforms. I have no doubt that, in the next legislative period, we will return to everything that has been left behind this time and that we will pursue the European Union's further development from this Chamber of Europe's citizens.
(ES) Mr President, we must undoubtedly congratulate Chancellor Merkel and, in particular, the President of the European Commission, who is now having his second big success, following the approval of the financial perspective, because we have avoided a certain risk of crisis.
Many Members of this House may have hoped for more, but we must acknowledge that this agreement is perfectly consistent with the Community method. I am convinced that we are going to carry on functioning perfectly well until 2014 or, in exceptional circumstances, for three further years, with the decision-making procedure adopted in Nice which, in the end - I would like to point out - was approved precisely in order to deal with enlargement.
Furthermore, I hope that, in order to round off the institutional package, the twenty seats remaining in the European Parliament will be filled for the 2009 elections, naturally, and adhering strictly to the proportionality criteria, that is to say, that it be done in an entirely democratic way.
Along the lines of the progress made in the field of justice and home affairs, I wonder whether the opportunity could be taken at the IGC to provide the European Counter-Terrorism Coordinator with content and duties. I believe that this post responds to an objective need and to a great sensitivity amongst the European citizens, as the latest Eurobarometer indicates.
Incidentally, I am sure that the European Commission's services will ensure that the terrorist group ETA is called by its proper name.
In the same vein, I am delighted by the mention in the final point of the conclusions of the peace process in Northern Ireland, but I am also surprised to see that there is not the least reference to the threat to the European citizens, and to the Spanish citizens in particular, represented by the breaking of ETA's ceasefire. Any opportunity to express the European institutions' solidarity with people whose freedom and lives are in danger every day is a good opportunity.
(PL) Mr President, Chancellor, as the leader of the delegation of the Polish left in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I am pleased to accept the compromise in accepting the mandate and the opening of the inter-governmental conference achieved during the European Council summit. The mandate adopted enables the new treaty to keep the most important institutional aspects of the constitutional treaty: the charter of fundamental rights, the extended competence of the European Parliament, the appointment of a European head of diplomacy and a note about European energy policy.
I am pleased that the Polish Government has finally withdrawn from its concept of an 'equal influence' system, which was opposed by the other EU countries, and accepted a compromised. This was a wise decision. However, the negotiating methods of the Polish Government, which uses arguments alluding to the Second World War, sully the image of Poland and have threatened Polish-German relations, which have so far been good.
Polish society's view of cooperation within the EU is different from the Polish Government's. Eighty percent of Poles support European integration, and I have no doubt that it was this view of Polish public opinion that brought about the compromise at the summit.
Today, at a meeting with the Socialist Group, the Chancellor said that to her, relations with Poland are equally as important than relations with France, and misunderstandings are a thing of the past. I am grateful to her for these words. I call upon the Polish Government to collaborate actively with the other Member States to prepare the final version of the treaty in such a way that it can be implemented before the European Parliamentary elections in 2009.
(applause)
(SV) I wish to thank and congratulate the German Presidency on what it has achieved in conjunction with the Commission. Through its work it has laid the foundation for a new Treaty. I would thank and congratulate the German Presidency not only on what has been achieved but also in the light of what it will be possible to achieve in the future.
A new Treaty is not an end in itself. The need for a new Treaty has emerged from the successes of European cooperation: enlargement, which has led not only to more Member States and a stronger EU but also to more different national wills to manage; the internal market, which has given Europe a stronger economic role in the world; and political integration and foreign policy, which has given the EU greater responsibility in the world. All these developments have given rise to, and continue to increase, the need for a new Treaty.
What is now becoming possible, however, also brings home the fact that it is not the treaties that are ends in themselves, but the action that may be taken on the basis of them. It is now becoming possible to deal with three issues that, especially given the historical background that we have, are more important than others. The first issue is that of climate and the need for an energy policy whereby the EU Member States can stand shoulder to shoulder in order to safeguard integrity and security. The second issue is that of the EU's future enlargement. The issue of enlargement is now once again emerging clearly as a topical issue which must be given further impetus by the governments of the Member States and by the Commission. It is the enlargements that have strengthened the EU and given it new tasks and that have given us a unique opportunity for peace and prosperity.
In this area, the internal market too has played a decisive role. I would therefore point out that, instead of relating only to the economy, any calling into question of free and open competition also calls into question EU-wide equal opportunities for the Member States, individuals and companies. Anyone who brings these things into question ultimately brings into question the European Union's ability to bring people and nations together. I therefore wish to issue a clear and urgent request to the Commission, the German Presidency and future Presidencies: remove any doubt that secure, free and open competition must prevail for everyone in Europe. Competition gives rise to prosperity, freedom and new successes.
(PT) Mr President, Chancellor Merkel, I too congratulate you, not only for the manner in which you conducted the Presidency of the Union, but also for the good results of the last Council. I am Portuguese and, regrettably, I do not speak German, but I do know how to say...
(DE) Thank you, Madam Chancellor Angela Merkel.
(PT) The European Council has gone as far as it can, achieving a realistic compromise, in the words of Jacques Delors. It has not been easy. The heterogeneity of the problems and the diversity of interests encourage national egoism. An agreement was reached thanks to there being determination, negotiating skills and a sense of responsibility on the part of some European leaders, although not all, as we are aware. However, the finishing line is still a long and difficult way off. In these complex processes of collective editing, it is easy to trip over a comma or fall at a word.
As my prime minister, José Sócrates, says, we have a mandate, but not a Treaty. For there to be a Treaty, everyone must collaborate - the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. A joint effort will be essential. Bearing in mind the complex international context and the legacy of the German Presidency, I am sure that the Portuguese Presidency will do its utmost to adequately address the mandate with which it has been entrusted.
(FR) Mr President, Mrs Merkel, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council has decided to end the period of reflection, which therefore means that the European Union has finally found a cure for the paralysis from which it has been suffering for two years. Without an agreement among the 27, the Union would not just have remained at a standstill, it would probably have entered into a real crisis heralding a process whereby our collective project was taken apart, piece by piece.
The mandate entrusted to the Intergovernmental Conference responsible for drawing up the draft treaty may not be ideal, but it is the fruit of a difficult compromise, gathering together Member States whose differences one feared had become intolerable.
I should like to congratulate the German Presidency, and particularly you, Mrs Merkel, for your skill and clear-sightedness during the negotiations.
I am also proud of the role played by France and by its President, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose initiative it was to have a simplified treaty dedicated to extricating Europe from a long-term stalemate and whose political will has been crucial.
True, we may regret that the Community spirit has not been embraced by all our partners, but patience and time will no doubt enable us to complete our work. I am now looking forward to this Lisbon Treaty, the signing of which in October will perfectly symbolise the end of a particularly disenchanting episode of European integration.
(PL) Mr President, what Europe needs is wise and balanced leadership, but what it needs more is joint action in important areas on the basis of the declared values that have become the mainstay of this Union. If the Union is treated as a common market, then profit would come before the main aims of the Union, and it would no longer be a Union, but a market-place. If the European Union is to some extent to be a cultural and political organism, then only 'more Europe', as Mr Barrosso often says, will contribute to the greater good of every Member State.
One point, however: I believe that the 'equal influence' system proposed by Poland, to which it was entitled, would not be a bad thing for real democracy and community, and for the equality of citizens. The double majority system could be interpreted as a signal that the European Union will not be enlarged over the next few decades.
(DE) Finally, I would like to express a wish to all of us and especially to the President-in-Office who was to show understanding for both parts of Europe: may you be an example to your successor of that effectiveness in negotiation that can only be achieved when the welfare and rights of every European nation, true community and equality of the citizens are top priority.
President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, it is an interesting state of affairs in the European Parliament when all the leaders are still here. I therefore thank you for the debate.
I would just like to deal briefly with two points. Firstly, the question of the internal market and competition, which has been a great cause for concern here. We debated in the Council whether competition is one of our objectives. I believe competition is not an end but a means. That is why we removed it from the 'objectives' heading, but we have made absolutely clear in the protocol on the internal market and competition that we will be inserting that this means remains intact and its importance is undiminished, and the Commission has also made quite sure of that. So nothing has changed. Employment and prosperity are our objective, but our objective is not competition as such, it is a means.
Secondly, a lot has been said about the voting system. For clarity I would like to repeat here once again: all possible forms of weighting, including root systems, are conceivable if you take them as the only form of voting. If we had been starting from scratch, we could have discussed them all. There is, however, a double majority, and this double majority brings the weighting between population and the 'one country, one vote' principle. Only this doubling makes the voting system acceptable, and we have probably now found a way that leads us back again to real international world problems and at the same time has a high level of fairness.
I would like to conclude with a sincere thank you. I can report from our government that we had a cabinet meeting today in which we took stock, and that all the members of the government were proud to have conducted this Presidency with enthusiasm and great commitment, and that the Social Democrat just as much as the Christian Democrat members of the government have contributed to that.
(Applause)
Secondly, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commission, to José Manuel Barroso and to all the Commissioners. We have worked together intensively and well, we have had friendly, tough conversations, often extending into the night, but we reached agreement and I believe the Commission and Council have come out of this Presidency stronger. I have enjoyed working with you personally, José Manuel, and I have also enjoyed working with the entire Commission and all its staff. Thank you very much!
My thanks are also due to the European Parliament. It is nice to debate in this Parliament, to feel the spirit of Europe and to accomplish many difficult tasks with the wind behind you - and with a bit of idealism that is perhaps found more often here than elsewhere. Because one thing is clear: where there is no more idealism there is only nationalism and clinging to your own vested interests. That does not get us anywhere and I therefore extend my sincere thanks to the entire European Parliament and especially to those who always helped us along. I will almost miss the cooperation, but one can always come here again as a visitor. Thank you very much!
(Applause)
Mr President, Chancellor, Members of Parliament, I have nothing to add to what Chancellor Merkel has already said with regards to competition. I would just like to make it clear that the discussions resulted in the non-retention of a particular expression used in the Constitutional Treaty, but in no way alter the principles of competition present throughout the entire Community acquis; that is, the idea that competition is an essential tool for the internal market and an essential tool serving the well-being of the citizens. This point has been clarified and I think, from this point of view, we can consider ourselves quite satisfied with the results of this European Council.
I would just like very quickly to underline one more point. The results of this European Council which, in fact, were extremely positive, now mean that we have an even greater responsibility. Let us consider for a moment where we would be today if we had not had this success. Prior to the European Council, I was untiring in my efforts to draw attention to our great responsibility in terms of credibility. How could we Europeans say to the world that we were being serious when we talked about energy safety and the fight against climate change and when we promoted increased employment, if we were unable to resolve the institutional question?
This result has been achieved but, as has already been emphasised, we have a mandate, which is excellent, but we still do not have the Treaty. This is why we must now all demonstrate the same responsibility so that, during the Portuguese presidency, if possible during the Extraordinary Council in October, we can achieve a Treaty to resolve the institutional question that is of such importance to the Union, allowing us to continue with our agenda for the benefit of the citizens, promoting increased employment and investing further in innovation. I would remind you that innovation should be a priority, not only in theory but also in practice, as indeed should all the other objectives of the renewed Lisbon Strategy.
There is, therefore, a vast potential for achieving results to the benefit of Europe and European citizens. And this is precisely why we need to provide the European Union with the Institutions that will give us the capability to act. I am absolutely convinced that we are in a better position today to achieve these objectives than we were some time ago. For this reason, I would like once again to congratulate the German Presidency and all those who contributed to this result.
It may not be an exaggeration to further emphasise the excellent institutional cooperation between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and also the fact that this is the first time that, from start to finish, an agreement has been reached by twenty-seven Member States, that is, the longest-standing members and the newest members. The negotiations were difficult at times, but the truth is that an agreement was reached, and this point should be underlined as being very positive.
Thank you, President of the Commission. Experience has shown that all three Institutions have always gone in the same direction for Europe. Tomorrow, the chairmen of the political groups will be in Lisbon to discuss with the future presidency how things should proceed. Thank you all for your participation.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Last week's political agreement on convening an Intergovernmental Conference and on the basic principles of the reform Treaty is a major compromise, but one that everyone can accept. The reform Treaty has got Europe back on track, and has averted a more serious and drawn-out crisis on the European scene.
The reform Treaty is essential if the European Union and its institutions are to be capable of acting, and it is indispensable in view of further enlargement. The principle of double majority in the decision-making process suitably balances and counterbalances the interests of the large and small countries. The European Parliament is the unquestionable winner in these reforms, since the expansion of its legislative scope places its political weight alongside that of the Council.
Those in support of the Constitutional Treaty cannot forget, however, that symbols are of enormous significance. Those in favour of integration were not seeking to create a European superstate, but wished to strengthen the common, or if you prefer, the supranational will in the legislative and decision-making process.
An example was set by the nine, among them Hungary, in representing the most important values in the constitution, including among others the retention of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the safeguarding of minority rights.
The political storms that raged in the Council have, moreover, taught us the very important lesson that in the decisions of the 27-member European Union, there are times when the positions of the countries in the Central and Eastern European region can, on account of their still undigested historical past, be integrated only at the expense of serious compromises. It is precisely for this reason that the time has come for the Central and Eastern European Member States to begin, with the participation of Europe, to deal with their historical wounds. This is the only way to ensure that the politics of victimhood does not prevail in the region or in individual countries.
in writing. - The package agreed by the 27 governments last weekend salvaged many of the practical institutional reforms that were contained in the constitutional treaty. However, it also dropped many key features: the notion of a 'Constitution'; the loss of the title and status of 'Foreign Minister'; the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be spelt out visibly in full in the treaty, and not be enforceable in British courts; the removal of the symbols (flag and anthem); the abandonment of changes on legal terminology (where 'regulations' and 'directives' would have been called 'laws' and 'framework laws'); the postponement of and changes to the new voting weights in the Council; and various derogations given to individual Member States, such as the UK.
These will be seen by the European Parliament as major sacrifices, but they are necessary to secure ratification of the package by all 27 countries.
in writing. - (PT) The mandate for the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) to amend the treaties, defined at the last European Council conducted by the German Presidency, confirms what we have been denouncing for some considerable time: that those who did not accept the results of the referenda in France and the Netherlands - which rejected the content of the so-called 'European Constitution' - began, almost immediately, to plan ways of getting around the sovereignly expressed wishes of the people of these two nations.
The IGC mandate speaks for itself. It is a case of recovering the essential content of the already rejected treaty proposal - overcoming contradictions, mainly those which, having been compromised by the referenda, they now seek to avoid - dressing it up as a 'reforming treaty' and setting aside the 'constitutional character', the better to disguise the operation.
Those who repeat to exhaustion that the new treaty proposal is impregnated with democracy are, in the end, the same ones who, once again, are planning how to avoid binding, national referenda, to be held prior to any ratification of a new treaty proposal. This is all the more serious inasmuch as it is an attempt to reinstate the qualitative jump in the joint federalist, neoliberal and militarist project which appeared in the rejected 'European Constitution'.
We may affirm that this is a doubly unacceptable process.
in writing. - The German Presidency was a disaster. The so-called reform treaty which is labelled a success is not preparing the ground for a social, democratic and peaceful EU. On the contrary, the EU is more divided now. Worst in this respect were threats by German politicians like PSE chairman Martin Schulz against Poland and Great Britain. Furthermore, the militarisation of the EU has been accelerated and there have been no commitments for another policy on climate change. Any new EU Treaty should be decided by referendum in all Member States. It is impossible always to talk about getting citizens more involved in European affairs while at the same time not letting them have a say on the most important issues in the EU. My wish would be that the voices of the people who rejected the constitutional treaty because of its neo-liberal and militaristic character were finally heard. I see the contrary, however: we are facing an attempt to get the substance of the constitutional treaty adopted through the back door by renaming the project 'reform treaty' and excluding the possibility of referendums. If the EU is to be based on democratic principles this has to be prevented.


13. Cosmetic products (recast version) (


7. Compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights (vote)
- Before the vote on paragraph 15(2):
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, shortly before the vote, my attention was drawn to a problem that is very easily solved. Paragraph 15 reads: 'intends to this end to amend Rule 34 of its Rules of Procedure'. As we need a different majority for Rules of Procedure than for this vote, many Members find the word 'intends' too strong.
I would therefore suggest amending paragraph 15 as follows: 'is to this end considering an amendment to the Rules of Procedure'. I hope the PPE-DE Group will also be able to agree to amending the Rule in this way.
(Parliament adopted the oral amendment)