Brussels, 22/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - Congratulated at the beginning and end of his speech with a standing ovation from MEPs, the president of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker gave the European Parliament a picture on 22 June of the details of the raft of efforts made by his presidency to try and get an EU25 agreement on financial perspectives 2007-13 on the night of 17-18 June in Brussels. Last January, he told MEPs, he knew that such an agreement would be difficult and he had been right. He also told them that such a failure would not be a failure for the presidency and in this context, “I only saw half the picture, it's a failure for Europe and also for the presidency…those responsible for it say there isn't any crisis but I can tell you, the crisis is deep”. In a frank speech which displayed his conviction, marked by disappointment but also contains humour, the Luxembourg prime minister said that he was sad to have not been able to prevent the crisis. He exclaimed that “I am not very diplomatic. I don't want to be diplomatic when Europe is in crisis. I only want to play a role. We all want to play at diplomats and when people don't understand us, they think we are machines…in the early hours of 18 June, It did not have the strength or stature to launch a final appeal” (for an agreement on financial perspectives): it's not de Gaulle who wants it” explained Mr Juncker, who recognised that for a certain moment he had had his convictions shaken but that after receiving thousands of letters “I feel more determined than ever”. Warmly applauded by the plenary, Juncker insisted that “our generation does not have the right to undo what has been done. Generations will follow who will need a political Europe, if not it will move away from a Europe of solidarity, a social and competitive Europe, strong externally and internally. Therefore old Europeans, convinced Europeans take heart and go forward”.
Juncker recalled the saga of the negotiator president. He said that before the summit he had received his colleagues bilaterally in Luxembourg over a total period of 50 hours, added to which were 15 hours of negotiations at the European Council. He pointed out that, frankly, one could not do any more than this and those who follow him would be expected to do less. He stated that at the summit they got a budget of 1.056% in commitment appropriations and 1% in payment appropriations which gave him the impression of this global volume being accepted and that he would have preferred moving forward by a few millimetres on 18 June. He said that in discussion with colleagues nobody had demanded the retaining of the British rebate in its current form. He declared that the final compromise included a British rebate exactly as before with the older Member States whereas the United Kingdom would have funded cohesion policy in new Member States, which would have been normal but “not on the CAP, which London sees differently”. This would mean that the United Kingdom would have had a rebate of EUR 5.5 bn, which is more than the amount at “Fontainebluff in 1984 (irony on Fontainebleau summit decision on British rebate) up to 2005”. Juncker said that he had first proposed a freezing of the Rebate to EUR 4.7 bn, which would have “corrected the net contribution of the Netherlands by a billion a year but we couldn't do this because the United Kingdom was not prepared to adjust its cheque sufficiently”. Juncker explained that although the letter signatories requested a budget ceiling of 1% of national income, they had not agreed on the details.
On the disagreements over CAP, Juncker explained that the presidency had proposed a declaration from the European Council indicating that they should reflect on ensuring that the budget responded to the challenges in the future and citizens' priorities, which should lead to a review of all aspects of the budget in the Union. He therefore insisted that this included the Common Agricultural Policy but “not only Common Agricultural Policy”.
Mr Juncker said that they were wrong to reject the package. If they had accepted it, CAP spending on direct aid and market measures in the EU15 would have gone from 42 billion in 2006 to 35 billion in 2013 - a 17% fall for the EU15 and a 5% cut for the EU25. “What a road to go down, what obstinacy to not see this! he exclaimed. He asked for them to stop saying anything at all on research policy which is compared to the CAP when the two things were incomparable given that the Cap is the only true policy funded entirely by the EU budget, whereas research policy is primarily national. Juncker said that their proposal, and if Member States respected their commitments on research public spending over the next financial perspectives, they would have spent EUR 305 bn on CAP and 524.25 for research. He added that for policies orientated to the future, their proposals included a rise of 7.5% a year for Lisbon objectives spending and 15% for JHA spending and 2% for cohesion, with greater concentration in new Member States. Juncker said that at present they should try and move forward on financial perspectives “without breaking common policies, without attacking cohesion policy”.
On the subject of Constitution ratification, Juncker (who pointed out that very important matters were awaiting Luxembourg: allusion to 10 July referendum) sought a large European debate decided at by the summit in all Member States that had or had not or were going to ratify. “Europe needs debating, and I want the European Commission to find its place in this debate as guardian not only of the treaty but also the sprit of the treaty, the European ambition”. He told Mr Barroso that he was inviting him, “pushing him, harrying him to make this a matter of the Commission and a personal matter too”. Juncker considered that the debate lay between two concepts - those who were like china dogs facing each other without being able to have a dialogue: those who want a free trade zone but believe that Europe has gone too far and those who want further integration and “like me, think that it should go further”. Juncker began by sketching the positive results of his presidency: reform of the Stability Pact (as president of Eurogroup, “I will ensure that it is correctly interpreted”)¸relaunch of Lisbon strategy, adoption for first time of integrated guidelines on growth and jobs (to those “who want to modernise Europe by giving the impression that the others don't want it”, Juncker said that they should first tackle the decision that they had already taken before taking new ones, new public development aid objectives (“I am not very proud of it, knowing that the others don't want it”), improved relations with the Americans (“who would have thought a year ago or six months ago that we would be able to shake hands and find a common line of action” on Iraq, “”relations had significantly improved” with Russia, even if divergences persisted and it was necessary to know which ones.
Juncker was also keen to highlight his respect for the “institutional triangle” indicating that with the Commission they had a good debate that was still ongoing and neither of the two institutions had ever proposed something without the other being informed beforehand; with the Parliament, he explained that they had worked together “like twins”. The European Parliament had “reached its maturity, it's a great parliament”. Juncker said that visitors went to the Parliament not only to see the building but to see it filled up. EUROPE will be returning to president Barroso's intervention and debate.