Brussels, 20/12/2005 (Agence Europe) - Tony Blair fought tooth and nail in Brussels on Tuesday, to defend the results of the European Council of 15 and 16 December on the financial perspectives 2007-2013, and also the overall results of the six months of the UK Presidency, against criticism from MEPs, most of whom were quite scathing and, in a few cases (particularly on the part of the British Eurosceptics), aggressive to the point of actual rudeness. Addressing the Conference of the Presidents of the Political Groups, which had been extended to include all interested parties, the British Prime Minister acknowledged several times that the agreement reached on the financial perspectives was "not ideal", but that it had been necessary in order to be able to turn towards the future. The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, came to his aid, pointing out how hard the negotiations had been and noting that certain Member States already see as excessive what the Parliament deems to be insufficient, if the European Union is to be up to the job of the tasks ahead of it. The agreement at the summit is still not yet the financial perspectives of the Union, several members pointed out, adding that the Parliament had not yet had its say. President Barroso, for his part, said that he had "always reminded the Member States that the rights of the Parliament had to be respected", and that negotiations with this institution must now get underway.
On this, Mr Barroso seemed to go slightly further than at his press conference on Monday (when he said that he did not believe that there would be any substantial improvement in the results of the summit: see EUROPE 9093), stating: for the expenditure destined for culture, education, life-long learning, youth and citizenship, we must make "an extra effort", and if we work closely on this together, "we can see some real improvement". Here, Mr Barroso referred to point 7 of the agreement on the financial perspectives (which we will publish in full in EUROPE/Documents), which states that the European Council calls upon the Council, on the basis of a common position, to agree with the European Parliament on a new inter-institutional agreement reflecting the conclusions of the summit. In this context, the European Council takes note of the fact that the Commission is to make concrete proposals in order to increase the flexibility of the financial framework, President Barroso stressed, noting that the European Parliament sets great store by this increased flexibility, and reiterating the fact that the European Commission is prepared to work extremely closely with the European Parliament "in order to have a much better budget".
It is clear that the European Parliament would have preferred an agreement "at a higher level ", but I believe that what we obtained was "the most we could get under the current circumstances", said Tony Blair, adding: the objective was to make a success of enlargement, and my country, which was one of the staunchest defenders of enlargement, cannot continue to be so without wanting to contribute the necessary resources to this. As for the British rebate (over which he came in for some extremely harsh criticism from certain British Conservative members and members of the UK Independence Party), Mr Blair said that "for the first time", there will be "equality, by and large, between countries of a similar size" in contributions to the budget of the EU. Coming under fire from all sides over the inconsistency between the "vision" he expounded in his speech to the Parliament in June and the modest sums finally provided for their future expenditure (innovation, R&D, etc), Mr Blair said that this proposal makes "much more for the future than some people seem to think" (one such MEP was Jerzy Buzek, Polish member of the EPP-ED group and rapporteur on the seventh framework programme for research and development). In June, Mr Blair also pointed out, I told you that we had to undertake a reform and restructuring of the budget, and this is what we have decided to do in 2008- and, it goes on there saying, this will be done on the basis of a proposal by the Commission and by a unanimous decision. This means that we will really be able to think about "what a reasonable EU budget should look like", insisted the British Prime Minister, who compared the European budget, as it has evolved over the years, to a "house with different rooms built at different times by different interior designers". We are now looking at the house as a whole, and we can do this in the context of a debate on the future of Europe, said Mr Blair, adding: we must resolve the issue of the budget if we are to be able to return to the issues raised at the beginning of our Presidency, further to the French and Dutch "no-votes", which is "how to reconnect Europe with its citizens". He feels that in order to be able to do this, we should not just keep reiterating "the successes of the past, even if these are immense", but we must show that we are capable of facing up to the challenges of the future, which are: dealing with globalisation (one very important response will be to complete the single market, which also means adopting the directive on services), continuing to "work for the cause of enlargement" (the enlargement of the European Union to Central and Eastern Europe is one of the "best things" ever to happen to us, and the lesson to be learned from this is that we must not be afraid of enlargement which, on the contrary, "adds to our strength"), illegal immigration, terrorism ("I would like to thank the Parliament for the agreement on data retention, and the fact that this comes under the first pillar is a sign of our goodwill towards it"), the international role of the EU (we must complete negotiations at the WTO, build on the results of Montréal where, for the first time, all the main countries of the world are brought together in their joint efforts against climate change, make the development package a reality, continue EU missions under CFSP).
José Manuel Barroso: “just imagine the atmosphere if we had not reached an agreement…”
If we had not had a decision on the financial perspectives, "at least at Member State level", how "would our partners have seen us?". "Let us just think what the atmosphere would have been like today if there had not been an agreement", President Barroso challenged those MEPs who were displeased with the imperfect agreement. Now, we must have a genuinely European debate on the financial perspectives, he said, because at the moment, there are 25 different conclusions on the summit (according to which, all 25 "won"), and even 50 different analyses, because the governments are usually in favour of the agreement obtained, and the opposition against. "Our ambition far outstrips this budget", but quite frankly, it was difficult to get a "better agreement", particularly due to national budgetary constraints, Mr Barroso reiterated. He then told the MEPs that "you could apply a bit more pressure to your parties back home, because here, you're calling for Europe to have a budget equivalent to 1.08% and your parties, back home, say that 1.03% is already too much!" In Mr Barroso's view, one positive element is that, whilst avoiding paralysis now, we have "opened up possibilities for the future", with the revision clause for the budget (which he proposed himself, and which had already been agreed to by the Luxembourg Presidency). "This vision of the future saved the financial perspectives", said Mr Barroso, who feel that the debate on the future of Europe "is also a debate about resources". The Commission will take this exercise seriously, it will not be "a pen-pushing exercise, we want to carry it out with you, with public opinion", said the President of the Commission (why not bring democracy into the debate, by making the financial perspectives a subject for the citizens to take position on at the European elections of 2009, suggested the Spanish Socialist Enrique Baron). In the meantime, in the immediate future, we need to be able to "reach an inter-institutional agreement as soon as possible", said Mr Barroso.
Most political groups believe that the results of the Summit need to be improved upon
In varying degrees of directness, most of the MEPs who took the floor during the debate said that the results of the European Council on the financial perspectives needed to be improved. This is a basis for negotiations, some of them conceded, while others were considerably more negative. "There are no financial perspectives, there is just a decision of the European Council", said Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the EPP-ED group, opening the attack. He had this warning for the governments: if you do not negotiate with us in a spirit of open-mindedness, it is worth bearing in mind that in the absence of financial perspectives, our room for manoeuvre (under the annual budgetary procedure) will be 30 billion EUR higher than your package... Like Mr Blair and Mr Barroso, the CDU MEP paid tribute to the work carried out by Jean-Claude Juncker prior to the UK Presidency (and he noted in passing that the Luxembourg Prime Minister richly deserves the Charlemagne Prize he is to be awarded in Aachen on 25 May 2006). It is true that your domestic situation is extremely complicated, Mr Pöttering told Mr Blair, calling upon him to continue on the same tracks, stating: in Europe, you need both "patience and passion, patience and passion". Hannes Swoboda, Austrian vice president of the Socialist group (who was standing in for president Martin Schulz, who was celebrating his 50th birthday), praised the UK Presidency for several of its merits (continuing enlargement, agreement on data retention, a "near-consensus on REACH", but went on to say: "you cannot seriously believe that your financial perspectives could be the basis of future waves of enlargement!" You are telling us that no agreement at all would have been worse, but Europe should "be doing more than avoiding the worst-case scenario (...). Back in Nice, we avoided the worst", warned Mr Swoboda, who picked up Mr Schulz's image of comparing the UK Presidency to the unfortunate Titanic, saying "you've managed to avoid the iceberg, but the ship is not yet on the right route (...); but it is not your fault alone, that is certainly true" (the ship is "off course", added Polish independent member Ryszard Czarnecki). "As they stand, we cannot agree to your proposals", Mr Swoboda concluded.
Several MEPs felt the very meagre result was due to the attitude of all Member States and slammed the way in which talks unfolded (with “sugar” distributed to right and left, protested Spanish Socialist Barbara Dührkop Dührkop). “I don't envy you”, Graham Watson, ALDE Group President, told Tony Blair, adding that they are, “like mountain climbers (who) rope themselves together with a rope, otherwise the most sensible would go back home”. If the Parliament were to vote today on the financial perspectives, “we would reject your proposal”, the British Liberal Democrat asserted, going on to note: “But we are not voting today and there is room for negotiation”. Mr Watson, however, admitted it was very difficult to find an agreement on a long-term budget in the presence of “so many conflicting agendas” from the different Member States. The real challenge is the state of “your public opinion”, he said addressing Tony Blair, admitting that such difficulties are exacerbated by “poisonous pens” in part of the British press, and reproaching him for “your rhetoric approach, your poor negotiating tactics”, doing little to “change the climate”. Monica Frassoni, Co-President of the Greens/EFA Group, was still more explicit, saying “we have no more time for double language, please spare us this”. She warned that “we reject your proposal because it does not live up to the challenge”. Like other MEPs, the Italian Green member called for more funding for rural development, EU external action, culture and youth and less for nuclear fusion (she called for these three billion euros to be put somewhere where they can be of use rather than somewhere not yet within reach). Furthermore, Monica Frassoni considered that Commissioner Barroso should be a “little more committed” in favour of administrative spending after the “disastrous reforms” of Neil Kinnock (former vice-president of the Prodi Commission). Giusto Catania, who spoke in the place of Francis Wurtz, President of the GUE/NGL Group, was totally negative, saying it was one of the worst agreements imaginable and that it resembled to the letter the “six of 1%”. It goes towards Europe “at two speeds, and sometimes even three” and, for a 27-member Europe there will be a budget 25% below that of the EU15. Clearly positive, Brian Crowley of Ireland, who presides the Union for a Europe of Nations Group, congratulated Tony Blair for the summit and for the British Presidency (on which President Borrell had also recognised the constant presence of the European Parliament, noting: “the vice prime minister, Prescott, is practically part of the parliamentary landscape!” “No solution is a perfect solution”, Mr Crowley said on the subject of the financial perspectives. He concluded by telling Tony Blair that his commitment must not end with the end of the Presidency and that he must cooperate with successive presidencies.
Neither is Nigel Farage, Co-President of the Independence and Democracy Group, satisfied with the British Presidency, but for other reasons. Tony Blair promised not to put the British rebate on the table but he did so and the only thing he managed successfully was to open talks for Turkey's EU membership, opposed by a “vast majority of Europeans” and which would cost still more money, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) elected representative said. Why should the British taxpayers pay for the metro in Warsaw or the sewers in Budapest when public transport in London is ”crumbling”, he asked, going on to say: “Chirac, unlike you, stands up for national interests”. Still more virulent, British Conservative Roger Helmer (NA after being expelled from the EPP-ED Group) accused Tony Blair of selling the British rebate in “salami slices” without receiving anything in exchange. Gordon Brown was right to say that no-one believes a word Mr Blair says, he told Blair, concluding that it seems Blair is concerned about his “legacy” but that he will be remembered as having “squandered Thatcher”s legacy”. It is thanks to Margaret Thatcher that Central and Eastern Europe are doing better, and not to the European Union, another UKIP representative, Gerard Batten said, feeling that the current European policy tends to make these countries “subsidies junkies” - which Tony Blair strongly denied. The leading British Conservative, Timothy Kirkhope, brandished a blank sheet of paper saying: this is the result of your presidency, Mr Blair! (to which the prime minister answered by wishing him every success in keeping his troops within the EPP-ED Group, while the new Tories leader, David Cameron, promised to remove them). Your result is a disaster, another Tory, Geoffrey Van Orden, said, citing the situation in Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. If Ethiopia and Eritrea are almost at war, it is not the fault of our presidency, Blair retorted. Answering Mr Van Orden who impatiently asked “And Mugabe, and Mugabe?” Blair replied “There are problems in the world. I do my best. Give me a break!”. Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL, Finland) slammed into President Barroso, asking: “What role do you play in the Blair circus? - clown or trapeze artist?”
You are a " terrific salesman", German Liberal member Silvana Koch-Mehrin, who was critical on the substance, told Tony Blair, whilst Alexander Stubb (EPP-ED, Finland) told him that he sympathised with him, joking: at the summit, the agreement was finally clinched by the three "centre-right leaders: Merkel, Barroso and... Blair". Other MEPs made concrete suggestions, including British Labour member Terence Wynn, who suggested saving a billion EUR by stopping the sessions in Strasbourg, and British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff, who suggested the creation of a committee of investigation, with representatives of the Parliament, to prepare for "the renegotiation of the funding system". Why not re-examine expenditure under the CAP in order to take on board the reform of the "sugar" regime and the results of the WTO conference in Hong Kong, suggested British Labour member Richard Corbett.
Tony Blair, in his shirt sleeves, answered the questions put by almost all the MEPs, whom he told: in my experience, "in politics, there are three types of people": "reactionaries" (addressing the British Eurosceptic members waving their Union Flags throughout the plenary session, Mr Blair said: "you who have come here with a flag of your country are not representing your country"); "commentators"; and "doers". It is not the commentators who solve problems, it is the doers, he concluded.
Mr Blair: it would have been easier for me to block an agreement at the summit - Mr Borrell: the Parliament has not yet set its “red lines”
At the press conference following the debate, Tony Blair repeated his call for a "bottom-up re-examination" of the budget, to start "mid-way through" the new financial perspectives, as of 2008, and which should lead to a "more rational" budget by no later than 2014. Should the reform of the system of own resources include the introduction of a European tax, he was asked. "I have never been in favour of European taxes. Let us wait and see what the Commission will propose in its report" in 2008/2009, was all that Mr Blair would say on this subject. The British Prime Minister referred to the virulent criticism levelled at him in his own country since last weekend's agreement (criticism he is unable to share, "because this is a fair agreement for the United Kingdom", particularly because "for the first time", it guarantees "parity" between British net contributions and those of other comparable countries, particularly France). Essentially, "the British people are not hostile to Europe", but it is not surprising to see that support for the EU is falling, "when you read in the British press that the United Kingdom is the only country paying for enlargement" or that the British government "has given up its rebate with nothing in return". This is the major problem with the vast majority of the British press which, on issues of European integration, is "not objective, but biased ". Obviously, "the easiest thing for me would have been to block the agreement of the European Council, to go back home and say: I remained firm on all points. However, if I had, enlargement would not work", but "we benefit greatly from it", said Mr Blair. It is even more "absurd" to say that the United Kingdom would be better served if it left the European Union. "British interests are best defended if we are good partners in Europe. This lies in our interest", said Mr Blair.
The President of the European Council said that he was confident that the long-term reform of the European budget would be a success. "I think that it is fair to say that the majority of the European Parliament is in favour of reform, which is a sign of hope for the future". As for the "Barroso Commission, this is most certainly a Commission which is in favour of reform". It remains to be seen, when the time comes, whether the Member States will also be prepared to take a step towards the necessary reforms, added Mr Blair.
Mr Blair declined to speculate on the leeway which still exists to increase the budget at inter-institutional negotiations with the European Parliament. He simply pointed out, with José Manuel Barroso, that in view of several Member States, "the ceiling of 1.03% of GNI" (initial proposal of the UK Presidency) was already too high. The President of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, reiterated that the EP would like to see improvements, but that it had "not yet set its red lines" for the negotiations with the Council and Commission. In the agreement of the European Council, certain European policies were "seriously neglected", possibly because they were more European than national. Now, it is up to the EU to introduce a "pan-European approach" to the debate, "and I hope the European Parliament will do this" after a "broader debate which must start with own resources", concluded Mr Borrell.