Brussels, 23/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - “In every crisis there is an opportunity. There is one here for Europe now, if we have the courage to take it”, Tony Blair began in his speech to the European Parliament on 23 June in Brussels, sketching out the priorities of his Presidency that begins on 1 July. In somewhat combative mood, the British prime minister on several occasions proclaimed his European convictions, saying: “I am a passionate pro-European. I always have been. My first vote was in 1975 in the British referendum on membership and I voted yes. In 1983 (…) when my party had a policy of withdrawing from Europe, I (…) disagreed with the policy. (…) Since being Prime Minister I have signed the Social Chapter, helped, along with France, to create the modern European Defence Policy, (…).This is a union of values, of solidarity between nations and people, of not just a common market in which we trade but a common political space in which we live as citizens. It always will be. I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply an economic market”. Mr Blair was critical of what he described as a “caricature” of his attitude, saying: “The debate over Europe should not be conducted by trading insults or in terms of personality. (…) The issue is not (…) between those who want to retreat to a common market and those who believe in Europe as a political project. (…) It is to intimidate those who want change in Europe by representing the desire for change as betrayal of the European ideal. (…) Political Europe and economic Europe do not live in separate rooms (…) It is a time to recognise that only by change will Europe recover its strength, its relevance, its idealism and therefore its support amongst the people. And as ever the people are ahead of the politicians. (…) The issue … is about modernisation. It is about policy. It is not a debate about how to abandon Europe but how to make it do what is was set up to do: improve the lives of people. And right now, they are not convinced”. Thus, in his view, the explanation for the French and Dutch “no”s is that “the Constitution merely became the vehicle of the people to register a wider and deeper discontent with the state of affairs in Europe”. Blair stresses that one needs to come down into the real world, heed the wake-up call, and listen to the people. He was interrupted on several occasions by applause from MEPs (before receiving warm applause at the end of his speech).
Mr Blair believes it is in this context that the debate on the budget should be placed, reiterating: “It should not be abstracted from the debate about Europe's crisis. It should be part of the answer to it”. At this point, Mr Blair again challenged the description given of his behaviour at the European Council in Brussels, saying: “There have been suggestions that I was not willing to compromise on the UK rebate; that I only raised CAP reform at the last minute; that I expected to renegotiate the CAP on Friday night. I fact I am the only British leader that has ever said I would put the rebate on the table. I never said we should end the CAP now or renegotiate it overnight. Such a position would be absurd. (…) I have said simply (…): that we cannot agree a new financial perspective that does not at least set out a process that leads to a more rational budget;(…). Again, in the meantime, of course Britain will pay its fair share of enlargement”.
During our Presidency, Tony Blair announced, “We will try to take forward the Budget deal; to resolve some of the hard dossiers, like the Services Directive and Working Time Directive; to carry out the Union's obligations to those like Turkey and Croatia that wait in hope of a future as part of Europe; and to conduct this debate about the future of Europe in an open, inclusive way, giving our own views strongly but fully respectful of the views of others”. Britain's first objective will be to modernise the European Social Model, he repeated, slamming those who accuse him of wanting to abandon this model: “What type of social model is it that has 20m unemployed in Europe, productivity rates falling behind those of the USA; that is allowing more science graduates to be produced by India than by Europe?” Yes to the Social Europe, but it must work, and “the Kok Report in 2004 shows the way”, Mr Blair states (also keen to “demolish the caricature” given by those who say his country is “in the grip of some extreme Anglo-Saxon market philosophy that tramples on the poor and disadvantaged”, and saying that his government has, introduced “Britain's first minimum wage”. Secondly, the EU budget must reflect these realities as, according to Mr Blair, “the Sapir report shows the way. Published by the European Commission in 2003, it sets out in clear detail what a modern European Budget would look like. (…) But a modern Budget for Europe is not one that 10 years from now is still spending 40% of its money on the CAP”. (Ed.: the publication of the Sapir report had, at the time, caused considerable polemic).
Sharp polemic: Editor's note). Thirdly, the presidency will implement the Lisbon strategy: Mr Blair said that the agenda had informed them of what to do. Fourthly, “a macro-economic framework is needed that is both disciplined and flexible”. Acknowledging that it was not up to him to comment on the euro zone, Blair explained that, “if we agreed on real progress on economic reform, if we demonstrated real seriousness on structural change, then people would perceive reform of macro policy as sensible and rational, not a product of fiscal laxity but of commonsense. Another priority: internal security, immigration and the fight against crime. In this context Blair demanded that they hit drug traffickers and those smuggling illegal immigrants, human beings hard and that they put into place anti-terrorist action. CFSP, in this connection, he insisted that practical measures were needed for developing European defence capability and enabling the EU to launch more peace keeping and conflict resolution missions. He averred that such a defence policy was necessary for an efficient foreign policy. He mentioned other areas where Europe could use its influence: doubling aid to Africa, multilateral trade negotiations, climate change, peace in the Middle East (where, “Thanks to Javier Solana, Europe has started to make its presence felt”. He concluded with an appeal to continue the enlargement process. He remarked that a Europe that had confidence in itself would not see enlargement as a threat but warned, “if we stop enlargement or shut our its natural consequences, it wouldn't…save one job…prevent one delocalisation. For a time it might but not for long. And in the meantime Europe will become more narrow, more introspective…and garner support for outdated nationalism and xenophobia”.
President Barroso insists on getting consensus
The president of the European Commission said that in this turbulent period in European history a “new consensus is vital if we want to avoid paralysis”. He considers that the British tradition of pragmatism and results-orientated results would be tested over the following six months. José Manuel Barroso said that he was confident that Tony Blair would be able to lead a constructive debate on “wha t Europe can do for its citizens, and create the consensus required for the urgent decisions that Europe needs”. He also said that Blair's priorities were close to those of the European Commission. He referred to the Lisbon strategy and financial perspectives (pointing to the rendezvous clause that he had proposed for 2008) and asserted, “That is why we must base further efforts on the existing proposals and the work of the Luxembourg Presidency. This does not mean that we should abandon the search for a better balanced budget”. He also stated that alluded to the “better legislation” objective. He said that Parliament and the Council had to work together, adding “A first target must be agreement next month on a common approach to impact assessment across all three Institutions”. He also outlined that around 200 pending proposals were currently being examined and in the autumn they would decided whether to maintain, amend or simply throw them away. Finally, in October the Commission will present the next phase of its simplification programme, setting out a work programme for 2006 and 2007. Mr Barroso was also keen to point out that the Commission regarded two subjects as very important: Africa and climate change.
Response to Tony Blair's speech quite positive - some criticism and a dose of scepticism
During the debate Han-Gert Pöttering, president of the EPP-ED group called on Mr Blair to prove his European commitment, warning that they did not want any new axis between big countries. He pointed out that Parliament had adopted the Böge report on financial perspectives and advised Blair to orientate himself on their report (he urged him to conclude the package, in a way that Conservative John Major had been able to get an agreement on financial perspectives in 1992). The president of the Socialist group Martin Schulz told Tony Blair that the “Tour de France begins today and this is the first lap and your first lap was very promising”. He reminded Blair that he had to be at the head of the race and in front of them during the mountain climbing stages. On the social model, the German social democrat recognised that it needed reforming but not by enclosing it in a museum. On the CAP, he indicated that “according to the calculations of our colleague Ralf Walter, all agricultural spending in the EU is equivalent to 0.48 of GDP and that for research in Member States is 0.86%”. Graham Watson president of the ALDE groups said that the United Kingdom had to demonstrate that is was really at the heart of Europe, after so many years of distrust but that he largely supported Tony Blair's reform ambitions but warned that he did not know how he could achieve them with a budget of 1% of the GNI. The British Liberal Democrat asked Blair to change the rules of the Council of Ministers and make it sit in public when it legislates. Warmly applauded, Blair replied that there were many arguments to consider. Tony Blair said that he had some memories of the co-president of the Greens/EFA, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, as “Danny the Red”, who set the students' assemblies alight in May 68 in Paris. Blair said that it was good to see him after so many years and that at the time he listened to his speeches but that now Cohn-Bendit was listening to his.
“You want to change Europe?. Welcome to the club, Tony”, Daniel Cohn-Bendit said, egging him on with: “You say Europe needs leaders, but a modern leader must speak the language of truth - well, comrade Blair, if you have so many ambitions, remove your signature from the letter by the tight-fisted 1% lot!”. He went on to say: “So you want to reform the CAP? Then why allow only the Duke of Bedford and the Queen to have farm subsidies? Why has the Tate & Lyle sugar company received subsidies of EUR 180 million? They have not deserved them. The language of truth, that means also recognising what the people want or do not want. The people of Europe said no to the war in Iraq, that you wanted”, the German Green member kept on. Mr Cohn-Benit also invited Tony Blair to take an initiative: ten years after the massacre in Srebrenica, one can see that the Dayton Agreements are not working on the ground, so “go and see your mate Bush, go and see all your friends and tell them to put a stop” to the agreements. Francis Wurtz, President of the GUE/NGL Group, was quite severe, being in favour of reflection on the European social model but in the aim of “drawing lessons from the systematic dismantling of this famous model”. He continued: “Your conviction seems to be that the very best of all is your own model as it restricts apparent unemployment to just 5% of the active population”. However, John Monks, President of the European Trade Union Confederation, which is “nonetheless close” to you, said the Anglo-Saxon model is not more popular among British voters than elsewhere in Europe. On the subject of the CAP, yes, by placing a ceiling on aid so that it does not enrich the “pseudo peasants with seats at the House of Lords”, Mr Wurtz exclaimed, also saying that London will, “sooner or later”, have to give up its rebate (without rebate, our contribution would be 15 times higher than that of countries with similar prosperity, Mr Blair protested in his brief answer to MEPs). In 2005, Mr Wurtz explained, the amount of the rebate exceeded the European research budget and all pre-accession aid to Bulgaria and Romania over three years, and is equivalent to half of all the structural and agricultural subsidies to the ten new Member States. Brian Crowley, Irish President of the UEN Group, also requested that the CAP should not be “dumped” and warned against budget cuts that would prevent the Union operating.
Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party, Co-President of the IND/DEM Group, considered Tony Blair more convincing (“You will almost convince me that the United Kingdom should remain in the EU”, he joked) and called on him to ensure, in the debate that is to open, that the French and Dutch who voted “no” to the Constitution are “not treated with contempt”. He also pressed for an end to fishing agreements between the EU and countries of Black Africa, agreements that are killing thousands of local fishermen, he added. Roger Helmer, British Conservative (Non-Attached after being thrown out of the EPP-ED Group), was scathing about the idea of holding a pause for reflection. “There is nothing to reflect upon, after the French and Dutch no-votes”, he asserted, calling for “radical change in the Treaty of Rome”. James Hugh Allister (Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, NA) backed him up exclaiming: “The ever-closer Union failed” and “we should repatriate” our policies. “At last someone putting our feet back on the ground”, Jana Bobisikova, Czech NA member, told Tony Blair.
Some French MEPs were highly critical of Tony Blair and Jean-Louis Bourlanges (ALDE) reproached him saying: “You were very magnanimous” with our president who “had his knees on the ground”, and it is “morally shocking” that your country does not finance enlargement as the others do. It is “economically untruthful to say farmers are sucking the life-blood of Europeans” and “legally and politically abhorrent” to want to reform a policy through a budget. Françoise Grossetête of the EPP-ED Group, was scarcely less scathing, saying: “You want to examine all the anomalies of Europe but your presence here today in Brussels is one such anomaly”, the custom being for the Presidencies to present their programme in Strasbourg, she reminded Mr Blair, before going on to add: “You preferred to create the crisis (…) It will be a hard task for you to gain our trust”. In a more conciliatory manner, Socialist Bernard Poignant advised Tony Blair to “go and see Chirac, buy him a calf's head - you would be reconciled”, but, he added, for the other four countries (those who refused the Luxembourg compromise), a “little more is needed” to reach an agreement on the financial perspectives (in a press release, Mr Poignant says: “We shall assess the British Presidency on what it does, to quote the English saying: the proof of the pudding is in the eating”. In a more vehement tone, Italian Roberto Musacchio (GUE) told Tony Blair: “You are not the solution, you are one of the problems, you are not the New, you are the Old”. Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (EPP-ED), from Poland, admitted his disappointment about the failed budgetary agreement. After having been EU members for a little over one year, it is difficult to explain this situation to our voters, he said. If Kohl and Mitterrand had been at the Brussels summit, there would have been agreement, Avril Doyle (EPP-ED, Ireland) commented with some bitterness. Spanish Socialist Enrique Baron, exclaimed that the budget reminds him of the Soviet era, with “financial perspectives over seven years, that's more than in the Gosplan”.
Certain German Christian Democrats, hearing the appeal made by Tony Blair to follow the road of enlargement, expressed a wish for the EU to pose the question of borders: this was the case with others as well as Mr Pöttering,, such as the president of the foreign affairs committee Elmar Brok and Karl von Wogau from the security and defence sub committee, who pointed out that the EU had to be capable of expanding and that it was not reasonable to open negotiations with Turkey on 3 October. We can open negotiations with Ankara, declared Forza Italia MEP Antoni Tajani who appreciated Tony Blair's speech and spoke against a Europe that would meddle in everything and nothing. British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff, one of the latecomers to pause on the Constitution, reiterated his idea of having a new Convention with a new mandate for renegotiating the text by focusing on part III, policies. Another ALDE member, Bill Newton-Dunn from Britain acknowledged that Tony Blair had some “excellent goals and had made a very good speech”. But reminded Blair that during the last British elections he had obtained slightly over 35% of the votes whereas the “yes” vote in France had been 45% and that if he were there, it was because of the anomaly of the British electoral system. Newton-Dunn said to Mr Blair that ignorance about Europe was shocking and when would he be explaining Europe to the country he knew best.
Plenary session of the European Parliament (continued)Tony Blair begins budget structure revision and is expected to make initial changes in second half of financial perspectives 2007-13
During the press conference at the end of the debate, EP president Josep Borrell welcomed the great debate, that was worthy of history, which on Thursday confirmed that that European Parliament was a great European and democratic body. He said that yesterday and today they had been able to listen to two passionate Europeans, Jean-Claude Juncker and Tony Blair who, despite their differences, held an “open and frank debate” with MEPs. Borrell added that, “ I am happy to have heard that he does not want the EU to become a simple supermarket and does not want to change the Common Agricultural Policy overnight or abolish the European social model”. Borrell concluded that they were starting out on a great debate on Europe's future and “in ten months' time we will see where we are”.
Tony Blair also spoke to journalists about a good and very good quality debate. As to whether his vision of a modernised EU orientated on the future would be feasible with a budget limited to 1% of the EU's GNI, Blair underlined that he wanted as “tight a budget as possible”. He also averred that they had to take into account everywhere in Europe that governments are subject to financial constraints and that the most important thing was to “spend wisely”, adding that during the next financial perspectives they had to be “capable of having a fundamental review about how the expenditure is made”. The British prime minister repeated that he did not expect immediate EU budgetary structural reforms but wanted “at least to get a reform process underway so that we don't have to wait until 2014 before making changes”. He affirmed that over the next few weeks and months people would see how the British presidency had “a complete view on how the budget should be handled”. Asked about the concessions he expected from France on CAP before 2013, Blair proved evasive and would only point out that he did not want CAP to change overnight. However, he did declare, “we need to have a report on the possible reforms to allow us to make at least in the second half of the financial perspectives”. He pointed out that the money saved thanks to CAP reform and lower subsidies to farming had to be invested in the knowledge economy with massive investment in science, education, research and innovation if the EU wanted to remain competitive faced with new economic powers that were gaining a place in the globalised market such as China an India but also countries like Thailand and Vietnam. “We have to move up the value chain for industrial production”. And when we are at the top of the ladder, he said, they would be able to go up again after a while. He explained that this was the reality today and that “this does not mean abandoning social protection”. A British journalist asked why he had waited eight years to make as pro-European speech as that made today. Mr Blair replied that “I always made the same point in my speeches in the past but I haven' had the occasion to make a speech like that in the EP”. He added that all his arguments were based on the argument of the need for reform and refreshing European ideas in order “to make them relevant for today's world”.