Strasbourg, 17/11/2005 (Agence Europe) - The financial perspectives for 2007-2013 were the focus of the debate in Strasbourg on Wednesday afternoon at the European Parliament, on the subject of the informal summit held at Hampton Court on 27 October (EUROPE 9069). During the debate, Hans-Gert Pöttering, EPP-ED Group President, noted that the distance that separates citizens from Europe corresponds to the same as that which separates national governments, and it is therefore necessary to find renewed trust between Member States as well as the confidence of citizens. The results of the Hampton Court meeting were disappointing but the British EU Presidency was right to raise certain issues especially on demographic changes in Europe, Robert Goebbels from Luxembourg said speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group. He feels that, in this field, something could be learnt from the United States by adopting a more generous immigration policy, and globalisation (the MEP mainly played down any fear of China). Speaking for the ALDE Group, Karin Riis-Joergensen of Denmark stated that Europe can do very little for modernising the labour market as this is down to the Member States. It can, however, and must, ensure liberalisation of the services and capital markets. Belgian Green member Pierre Jonckheer accepts the fact that there are differences between one country and the next when it comes to the labour market but adds that, if one has to choose any one model, then his personal preference would be for the Swedish model. In his view, the budgetary debate should not be a confrontation of national egoisms and should, in time, result in true European resources. A good idea, bad results: this terse judgement from Kyriakos Triantaphyllides of Cyprus, on behalf of the GUE/NGL, is strengthened by British Michael Nattras who, for the Independence and Democracy Group, ironically suggests the inscription of a plaque at Hampton Court indicating that “on this spot, nothing happened on 27 October 2005”. Speaking for the UEN Group, Italian Roberta Angelilli said that, in Hampton Court, there was “no strategy, no reactivation, no intention to reduce the iniquitous British rebate”. British non-attached member James Allister fears, however, a scenario in which his country would make too many concessions on this point.
With a few exceptions (Armando Dionisi, EPP-ED Italy, who welcomes the “regained serenity” among the 25 and British Labour member Gary Titley, who is positive about the documents presented in Hampton Court but who calls for follow-up in earnest) MEPs expressed their disappointment about the results of the informal summit. “Informal” in French means sometimes that is “ill-formed, lacking in grace” or, according to Montaigne, “something that is hard to define”, French Socialist Bernard Poignant commented, saying that the next summit must find a line of exchange between citizens and cohesion among the 25. Rather than informal, the summit was “inconsistent”, Lapo Pistelli (ALDE, Italy) said, denouncing the limits of the half-yearly presidencies and seeing a constant accumulation of problems to be resolved. He said: “Ingredients are constantly being added to the cake but the cake never comes out of the oven”. Winston Churchill would have said of Jack Straw's speech that it was a “pudding without a theme”, British Conservative Timothy Kirkhope said ironically, calling for the Presidency to ensure greater transparency in decision-making (at least on this point, Jack Straw said he could be reassuring, announcing that the Presidency would soon be distributing an “option paper” on the question). Othmar Karas (EPP-ED of Austria) questioned Jack Straw's remarks about the vital importance of opening negotiations with Turkey and Croatia: Is this really one of the priorities that counts for citizens? he asked. Csaba TAbajdi of Hungary (Socialist Group) noted that the Hungarian prime minister proposed the adoption of coordinated policies (for example in the energy field) so why not accept this idea?
Jack Straw, in his responses to MEPs on budgetary issues, said he felt a little honesty was needed. The debate “is bound to be dominated, if not by national egoisms, national perspectives”, he said. Other countries, apart from the United Kingdom, are also “historically net payers”, he recognised, and prosperous countries such as Belgium and Luxembourg are beneficiaries. After the debate the British Minister for European Affairs, Douglas Alexander, said on the same subject that “what matters is not just the motivation of the Presidency or of one single country but the motivation of all”.
Commission President José Manuel Barroso for his part reiterated his hope that there would be a decision on financial perspectives, saying: “The Union must have the means for the policies of the future, must invest more in enlargement - I do not like to talk about the cost of enlargement”. An agreement will be the “test that Europe is on the move”. Defending the results of the Hampton Court summit, Mr Barroso urged for a new European dimension, for better and more flexible rules. He added: This does not mean a minimalist Europe, for in some areas the EU must do more, not less”.