Strasbourg, 14/12/2005 (Agence Europe) - In the course of their debate on Wednesday morning on the European Council Thursday and Friday, the MEPs, who were not happy at having to hold their debate without knowing the details of the forthcoming proposal of the Presidency of the Council on the financial perspectives 2007-2013, were almost unanimous in their criticism, with varying degrees of vehemence, of the shortcomings of the six months of the UK Presidency, but also of the governments in general. On the financial perspectives (the "pièce de résistance" of the summit, as President Barroso put it), the British minister for European affairs, Douglas Alexander, merely warned: what we are going to put on the table today is not an "entirely new" proposal, it is a revised proposal, which must be "realistic" like the previous one, given the state of play with the budgets of the Member States. "The room for negotiations is narrow", he warned. And, on the subject of the British rebate, he spoke this time as a British minister, rather than as the President of the Council: "We are prepared to pay our fair share, but no more". The proposals of last June would have meant that our net contribution to the budget of the EU would have been one third higher than that of France, he noted, stressing: this is not fair, and we will not accept it this week, or next year. We need an agreement which is acceptable not only to the countries which benefit from our policies, but also to those who contribute the most towards these policies, Mr Alexander stated.
José Manuel Barroso summed up the gist of this debate in his conclusions: above all, I noted a " feeling of great concern at a lack of ambition which could mortgage" our future, a concern at the risk of a "two-speed Europe, divided, for its ability to provide itself with the resources it needs to tackle globalisation victoriously and, therefore, to fight for the well-being and employment of our citizens". "I will express this concern in the strongest possible terms before the Heads of State and Government", the President of the European Commission told the MEPs, adding: "the mass has not yet been said (...). Tomorrow, we must reach an agreement which genuinely opens up perspectives, and not just financial perspectives". And, addressing the UK Presidency, he said: are you not worried when you see the overwhelming majority of the members of the European Parliament rejecting your proposals? And do you not find it "strange" that the only MEPs who are happy with this lack of ambition are precisely those with a "nationalistic, narrow and retrograde" vision of Europe? Think "strategically", Mr Barroso told the Presidency, but also the other Member States, adding that he felt an agreement was possible, but that this would require them to behave like "statesmen and women". This agreement, he repeated, must include: a higher level of expenditure, fair treatment for the new Member States, an adaptation of the British rebate (what we are talking about now is not its abolition, but a reduction of its increase, he pointed out), a genuine revision clause for the structure of the budget, taking account of some of the extremely good suggestions put forward by the European Parliament, on flexibility for example (see other article on Mr Barroso's press conference).
During the debate, Gary Titley was the only one to come to the defence of the UK Presidency (which he congratulated on its results on REACH and the Eurovignette, amongst other things). The British Labour member treated the words of the other Member States with irony, asking Douglas Alexander: could you tell us which of the Member States will go to the summit asking what it can do for Europe rather than what Europe can do for it? The salvo of criticisms started off with Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the EPP-ED group, who thundered: for us, the essential criterion is solidarity, and if the agreement on the budget does not express this, "we will be obliged to reject it". The British rebate is antiquated, and eventually must disappear, said the CDU MEP, exclaiming: if the countries of central and eastern Europe must pay this rebate, that is not on. Visibly wound up, President of the Socialist group Martin Schulz pointed out: last June, Tony Blair said that we were in crisis due to a lack of leadership, but six months later, I still see no signs of leadership, and "if there is a crisis, it is the crisis of the European Council" as a whole. All of the Presidencies of the Council, the German Social Democrat observed, tell us: do not plead to much in favour of Europe, it is not an "attractive" theme for the citizens; however, it was not so very different 50 years ago, but back then we were governed by statesmen and women, not "traders". "We have had enough of it, it can't go on like this", he said. On the British rebate, he spoke of "new mathematics", whereby the reduction of an increase is an actual reduction. Six months ago, we applauded Tony Blair's vision, including his vision of investment and a "high-tech future for our Union", Mr Schulz recalled, who told Douglas Alexander: on 10 April 1912, great crowds applauded in Southampton as the great symbol of high-tech set sail; none other than the... Titanic. "Today, we are on the ship of the UK Presidency. The captain is not William Dennis Smith, but Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. And our captain has one great advantage over the unfortunate Mr Smith. He has the iceberg in front of him, and he still has time to steer clear of it (...)".
“Let me give you our iceberg's coordinates. It is at 1.03 per cent. That is the centre of the iceberg. Do not sail in that direction (…), steer in the same direction as Böge and you will arrive in a safe haven”, joked Mr Schultz alluding to the Böge report on the financial perspective adopted last June by the Parliament. Leader of the ALDE group, Graham Watson, recalled that two years ago, a Head of State and five Heads of Government wrote to President Prodi requesting that the budget be kept to 1% maximum. For Mr Watson, this letter “signed by poisonous pens” was “the root of our problems” because, he explained, some of the signatories of this letter later wanted policies that they weren't willing to pay for. No agreement is better that a bad agreement, the long term interests of Europe must not be compromised, stated the British Liberal Democrat, who welcomed President Barroso's letter to Tony Blair on Monday (see EUROPE 9087). The joint leader of the Greens/EFA group, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, was in sparkling form when he denounced the “instrumentalisation of the European Parliament by the British Presidency “whenever necessary” (“Not able to get date retention through your own parliament? Do it in ours!”)
The Presidency tells us that “we have to be modern”, yet in agricultural spending, it wants to sacrifice rural development, “the most modern part” of the budget, and it favours nuclear energy, the energy of the 60's, while “modernity is hydrogen”, he protested. The German Green also attacked other “mean” countries, including his own, and told Françoise Grossetête, the UMP MEP, to “tell Chirac that defending the French agricultural policy, as it stands, is a scandal!” Francis Wurtz, the GUE/NGL leader, asked how it was possible to settle Brito-British politico-budgetary quarrels on the backs of the new Member States, while claiming to be the champion of enlargement. He felt that Jack Straw had a nerve to compare the funds allocated to these countries to “two Marshall Plans”, when, according to his own figures, the British rebate would, between 2000 and 2013, be a Marshall Plan but only for Great Britain, the world's fifth largest economic power. “It's not Europe anymore, it's the jackpot!” he exclaimed, going on, “Let us not go back to the time of 'I want my money back'” he begged. Cristian Muscardini, UEN group joint leader, along with others, criticised the Presidency for presenting its proposals at the last minute, when there should have been time for all the Institutions to discuss them. Jean-Marie Le Pen of the French National Front claimed that the reason had been to avoid any counter-proposals. From the same political group, Roberta Angelilli complained that Italy was the main contributor to Britain's rebate, and Tony Blair had chosen to blow up the contradictions in a Europe torn (“dilaniata”) by national selfishness. The British proposals were condemned by several other Italian MEPs, including Enrico Letta (ALDE) who warned that it was a vision of Europe founded on acquired privileges, a Europe that was betraying herself. Armando Dionisi (EPP-ED) quoted De Gasperi who said that to unite Europe, we have to get rid of the world of privileges, cowardice and rancour. In similar vein, Gerardo Galeto (EPP-ED, Spain) reproached the British Presidency for breaking the European cohesion policy, while Danish Liberal Karin Riis Jögensen told Tony Blair, whom President Barroso had compared to the Sheriff of Nottingham, to “play the role of Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor”. Margie Sudre (EPP-ED, France) said that we must not create a new wall in Europe, before going on to denounce, among other things, the British position, “an insinuation that is almost a threat: if the CAP is not reformed in 2008, the United Kingdom will keep its rebate intact” “When will you stop travelling in Europe and start living in Europe?” the Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber asked the British.
Mssrs Farage and Mote want out of Europe
Nigel Farage, joint leader of the Ind/Dem group, told Mr Douglas to face up to reality. We have never, he said been “so isolated (…) so disliked in Europe as now”. He proposed that the British Presidency be extended by six months and “We'll see that we don't fit into this club”. Addressing the other Member States, the UKIP MEP said, “You say we are slowing your progress. Well, get rid of us, kick us out!” Ashley Mote, a non-attached member from the same party, added, “Mr Heath lied to us to get us to join”, he called for the United Kingdom to leave the EU, “which is not a parliamentary democracy”, but rather “a new Soviet where Putin would feel at home”.
Disappointment for MEPs from New Member States
The British proposal reflected the selfishness of the big, rich countries, according to Bronislaw Geremek (ALDE, Poland) arguing for a Europe that was not only enlarged but also unified. His compatriot, Jacek Saruysz-Wolski (EPP-ED) stated that it was better no agreement than a bad agreement. He said, “We are asking for solidarity, not charity. We are not beggars”. The non-attached Polish member, Ryszard Czarnecki, said that it was a pity that at the time of 3-D cinema, there was a return to the black and white films of fifty years ago, with Sheriff Barroso and bad guy Blair.
Strong message to Iranian President
Douglas Alexander announced that the European Council would also condemn the Iranian President's unacceptable statements on Israel (see EUROPE 9088), and Mr Pöttering said that those who deny the right of Israel to exist are also denying a Palestinian state. Mr Cohn-Bendit suggested excluding Iranians from international competition, then there would be debate in Iran.