On the occasion of its 50th anniversary, the European Parliament published the memories of its past presidents. Texts signed by Emilio Colombo, Simone Veil, Lord Plumb and Enrique Baron Crespo are published herewith, with a preface by the current president-in-office, German Christian Democrat member Hans-Gert Pöttering.
* * * * * * * * * *
Foreword by Hans-Gert PÖTTERING, President of the European Parliament
The fifty-year span between 19 March 1958 and 19 March 2008 was a period marked by numerous historic events and developments which had a significant impact on the life of Europe's citizens. A key date here was that of the first direct elections to the European Parliament in June 1979.
After the 'constituent meeting' of the European Parliamentary Assembly on 19 March 1958 in Strasbourg, it was another 21 years until the European Parliament was first directly elected, making it possible for citizens to exercise influence at European level. This gave real substance to the concept of a 'Citizens' Europe'.
This is not the place to outline the whole history of the European Parliament or to detail the development of its powers. As the European Parliament celebrates its 50th anniversary, other works will serve those purposes.
The purpose of this publication is to enable former Presidents of the European Parliament, the record of whose impressions goes back to 1977, to give readers their view of the history of this institution, which in this way will be brought to life by people who lived through the events they are describing.
In 1958, 142 Members represented the then 168 million citizens of the six founding Member States of the European Community. After the forthcoming European elections in June 2009, 751 Members will represent approximately 500 million inhabitants of 27 Member States!
As the current President of the European Parliament, I am part of an unbroken chain with my predecessors. I was elected to the office on 16 January 2007, for two and a half years. I see my work as an unceasing continuation of theirs. Each of them in his or her own time sought to gain for the European Parliament, and thus for Europe's citizens, greater influence and a bigger say in the European decision-making process. Here I should like to try to indicate the persistent themes which have recurred throughout Parliament's development and to describe the characteristics which make this institution so unique and so different, not only within Europe but internationally. But let us first look back.
What is the point of having a European Parliament? Parliament represents the citizens who live in our common home, the European Union, and it ensures that their voice is heard in Europe and can exert influence.
To the younger generation today, the aims of the founding fathers of the European Union may already seem very remote and alien, but we should still remember what they were. They are no less important now than they were then. After the Second World War, great visionaries decided to draw a line in the sand and put an end to the horrors of the fratricidal wars which had created a climate of mutual hatred and plunged our continent into disaster. 'Never again!' was their watchword, therefore. In order to achieve their purpose, however, it was necessary to learn the right lessons from history.
How was it possible to pursue the new aim? First of all by placing their countries' coal and steel industries under common administration, or in other words by learning to manage economic resources jointly, to live together and to build a shared future in the midst of the Cold War.
What steps were taken? The six founder members (The six founder members were Beligum, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherland) created institutions to implement the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Treaty, which they had signed on 18 April 1951. Executive power was vested in a 'High Authority'. The Authority consulted the ECSC Common Assembly, comprising representatives of the Parliaments of the Member States.
Very quickly, the Parliamentarians recognised that any letup in the progress of the European project would cause that project considerable damage, and that the road towards political union in Europe was one which must be travelled more quickly and more ambitiously. In so doing, they were anticipating subsequent developments, and although they did not succeed in achieving their aim, they did set the reform movement in motion.
This foresight and the desire to make the European dream a reality were born of the urge to consolidate peace, democracy and regained freedom and of a striving to ensure the well-being of Europe's citizens. In the process, it was also intended not to forget the neighbouring peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, who were living in servitude. Freedom is the foundation stone of our common values, on which the European Parliament has always based its policies.
Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of Germany, who at the time was presiding over the Council of Ministers, quickly perceived the European Parliament's potential for development. On 12 September 1952, he said: 'A particularly striking feature of Parliament is its huge dynamism. Within your assembly there are - and this is typical of parliamentary work - those who seek courageously to achieve progress. We believe that Parliament's dynamism is vital.' These words, spoken by a great European, are as relevant today as they ever were.
It soon became apparent that the capacities of the ECSC were too limited to meet the challenges of the new era. On 25 March 1957 in Rome, therefore, the six founder members signed the treaties establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom). The Common Assembly became the European Parliamentary Assembly and at the same time the single assembly for the three Communities. It first met on 19 March 1958, with only consultative powers.
The first President of the European Parliamentary Assembly was Robert Schuman. In a speech he affirmed the European Parliament's desire to develop a culture of 'common thinking', which he described as follows: 'The formation of groups has enabled the Common Assembly, even from the time of its first sittings, to develop a sense of European cohesion which takes precedence over national interests.'
The political groups (See separate brochure on this subject) are the main driving force in the institution and its development. The fact that there were no national delegations in the assembly did much to help generate the European spirit, to promote objective debate which was capable of rising above national differences of interest, and to assist attempts to arrive at compromises which were intended to constitute a synthesis between national and European interests.
Georges Spénale, President of Parliament from 1975 to 1977, summarised this development in a remarkable way. Speaking about European integration, he said: 'One approach is that which holds that one should first and foremost serve people and only as a secondary consideration serve one's home country; another, however, holds that serving one's home country should take priority over serving people. In my opinion, serving Europe combines these two approaches, as it involves serving both people and one's own country equally.'
Efforts to arrive at viable compromises have always been the main focus of the work of our Parliament. This is particularly true when it comes to defending European values (See brochure on “Values”) and the balance between internal consolidation and support from outside.
As early as 1958, Parliament affirmed the universal character of the defence of human rights, thus anticipating the future political direction of the Union, giving it significant impetus and so going beyond the purely economic framework of the Communities.
It was in this spirit that Parliament expressed its solidarity with those peoples in Europe who were forced to live under dictatorships. In August 1961, for example, Parliament condemned the building of the Berlin Wall.
Similarly, Parliament supported the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe in their struggle for freedom and when the dramatic events occurred in the countries within the Soviet sphere of influence until the fall of the Wall in 1989. Parliament also fully supported the democracy movements in Spain, Portugal and Greece and gave them hope.
Since 1988, the European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. All the winners, for example Nelson Mandela, Alexander Dubèek, Aung San Suu Kyi or Alexander Milinkevich, have appreciated Parliament's support for their campaigns for freedom.
It was also the European Parliament that, over many years, again and again advocated that all cooperation agreements concluded with third States by the European Community and later by the European Union should include a human rights clause.
Internally too, Parliament has been active in various fields. These include combating racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, combating terrorism while preserving personal liberties, and campaigning for gender equality. All these efforts were aimed at safeguarding and consolidating fundamental rights. Thanks to pressure from the European Parliament, much has been achieved in these fields. For example, in October 2007 it was possible by means of the Lisbon Treaty to render a Charter of Fundamental Rights binding which will protect our citizens. The Charter is equally binding on Member States and the European Institutions, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Poland. On 12 December 2007 in Strasbourg, the Charter was solemnly proclaimed and signed by the Presidents of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council. The Lisbon Treaty will give it force of law.
The efforts to reach a consensus are also evident from the way in which the European Parliament has sought to increase its powers. However, these are not an end in themselves but must serve the good of citizens.
As in the case of human rights, here too the European Parliament displayed foresight about future events and sought a compromise between national and European viewpoints.
With regard to the budget, Parliament was able to expand its powers in gradual stages. As long ago as 1958 it pointed out that there was a 'democratic deficit' in this field, as the Member States decided the European budget without involving the national parliaments.
After long, hard struggles, the European Parliament became one arm of the budgetary authority - the other being the Council of Ministers - in the mid-1970s. It has adhered unshakably to its principle that the European Union must have sufficient funds to attain its objectives. In order to attain this objective, Parliament has used all its powers: in 1980, for example, it rejected the Community budget for the first time.
Originally the budget served mainly to finance the common agricultural policy, the aim being to guarantee the independence and autonomy of agriculture in the European Communities. Gradually the European Parliament managed to secure acceptance that funds for other fields should be distributed among countries and regions on the basis of the principle of solidarity. Parliament also defended this principle in the negotiations with the ten Member States which joined the European Union in May 2004. It was necessary to provide the European Union with the necessary funds to make a success of enlargement. Without financial solidarity, successful development would not be possible and existing disparities could not be overcome.
Today Parliament ensures that the Union's budget (In 2008, the Community budget is € 129 billion, equivalent to 1.03% of the Gross National Income of the Union) is so designed that the current challenges can be met. Efforts to protect the environment and particularly combat climate change, develop new technologies and help to ensure broad access to knowledge make it possible for the EU to meet its international obligations.
The European Parliament has used its budgetary powers as a lever to gradually expand its legislative powers in the various successive treaties.
Whereas in 1958 Parliament was a purely consultative assembly, once the Lisbon Treaty enters into force its legislative powers will be equal to those of the Council in virtually 100% of cases.
The European Parliament uses its legislative powers to simplify the everyday lives of citizens. Numerous decisions have been taken with this in mind. Among them I should like only to single out those whose symbolic value is greatest. These include reducing the cost of incoming and outgoing mobile telephone calls abroad, drawing up a 'black list' of airlines which fall short of the required safety standards and are therefore not permitted to enter EU airspace, or the ban on carcinogens in toys.
Since the enlargement of 2004, the EU has been in a fundamentally different situation with regard to legislation as well. It is becoming increasingly difficult to arrive at compromises with 27 Member States within the Council.
This was particularly true of two proposals with major implications: the Services Directive (Liberalisation of services provided by a service-provider from another Member State while respecting the labour law of the Member State where the service is provided) and the Chemicals Regulation ('REACH') (Stricter monitoring of possible risks to human health from chemicals). Here it was ultimately the European Parliament that brought about a compromise and thus made it possible to adopt both of these legislative acts.
This compromise proved possible because national and political differences were put on one side in favour of the overall European interest.
The European Parliament was able to make this important contribution because it had anticipated the enlargement in the European Parliament and prepared for the new state of affairs. Parliament has every reason to be proud of its work here.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the European Parliament invited observers from the new Länder, selected by the Bundestag, to come to Parliament as early as 1991 to promote the integration of citizens of the former GDR into the EU. They were involved in Parliament's work without having the status of Members. This was a great success, as it enabled them to familiarise themselves with the procedures of our institution and with the European Union as a whole at an earlier stage.
Later, this good experience was repeated twice more: firstly, in preparation for the accession of the ten new Member States, observers came to the European Parliament from May 2003 until enlargement on 1 May 2004 and then, in preparation for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, from September 2005 to December 2006. All the observers were members of their countries' national parliaments. They were allowed to join the political groups and got to know Parliament's working methods. Our new colleagues were therefore already fully integrated into Parliament's work from the first day of enlargement.
It was partly thanks to this tradition of mutual understanding that it proved possible within the European Parliament to reach politically necessary compromises, for example, as already mentioned, on the Services Directive and the Chemicals Regulation.
Since 1958, everyday cooperation in Parliament between people from different political and cultural backgrounds, the constant exchange of experiences, have been a specific characteristic of the European Parliament and the source of its rich vitality.
Each President of Parliament has made his or her own contribution to the institution's development. They set debates in train, act as mediators within Parliament, represent it both inside and outside the European Union and take its message to citizens.
The increased influence of Parliament is also reflected in the importance and duties of the President. Over the years, the practice has become established that the President is regularly invited to address the Heads of State and Government at the beginning of each meeting of the European Council to set out Parliament's position on the issues on the agenda. In addition, he, as well as the President-in-Office of the Council, signs legal acts adopted under the codecision procedure and the budget of the European Union. In external relations, he conveys the position of the European Parliament to his dialogue partners when he goes on official visits. Together with his counterpart from one of the Mediterranean countries, the President of the European Parliament presides over the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly. He also participates in meetings of the Speakers or Presidents of Parliament of the G8 countries.
During my term in office I see important priorities as being promoting the values of the European Union both inside and outside and promoting intercultural dialogue, particularly with our partners in the Arab/Islamic world. In an age of globalisation, which inspires both hope and fear, we must unequivocally oppose all forms of intolerance and build bridges of understanding. For it is only possible to realise our common values - freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law - and particularly to secure lasting peace by means of a dialogue between cultures.
Hans-Gert Pöttering
Emilio COLOMBO: March 1977 - July 1979
I view the years from early 1977 to 1979 as being the most rewarding of my lengthy commitment to Europe. Having been elected Member of the European Parliament for Italy in 1976, I was elected its President in 1977. I am grateful to the Members of the European Parliament during that parliamentary term, who three times in succession, from 1977 to 1979 (an uncommon occurrence under the regulatory framework of the time), decided to re-elect me in order to ensure the success, under my presidency and with their full cooperation, of the greatest of European democratic undertakings: election of the European Parliament by universal suffrage.
It was an intense and exhilarating period: we were at last shouting our belief in Europe from every town square, in different languages, and when knowing the language was of no assistance, our belief in Europe served to convey our convictions on the future of Europe.
When the elections results were announced, we saw that 114 375 367 voters, in nine Member States, had elected 410 Members.
However, alongside the already significant advent of elections to the European Parliament by universal suffrage, there were also other events which helped to raise the political and economic importance of the process of European integration.
In the late 1970s, during my presidency and as the European election process progressed, the Europe of six, and then of nine, trapped to the east and west between the ideologies of the 19th Century, not only witnessed but also precipitated, through its faith in democratic ideals, the fall of two right-wing dictatorships - first of Franco in Spain, and then of Salazar in Portugal. It was my honour, as the President of the European Parliament, to give the first pro-European speech in the Spanish Cortes, solemnly convened in Madrid, and later to the Portuguese Parliament which, appropriately, was meeting in Lisbon.
Furthermore, although relations with the East remained impervious - given the tight grip maintained on the Soviet countries in application of the principle of limited sovereignty - our Europe, which was managing to forge itself into an area of peace, freedom, economic development, free markets and social solidarity, nevertheless held a fascination, or at an least attraction, for the countries of the East.
One should not forget, however, that the on-going process of the construction of Europe periodically experienced major or minor crises attributable to the permanent conflict between upholding the principle of nationality and extensive supranational initiatives.
I will conclude my inevitably hazy recollections at that point, noting that, under my presidency, Parliament triggered the process which led, on 13 December 1979, to the budget presented by the Council of Ministers being thrown out. In doing so, it wished not only to draw attention to aspects of the budget approach which it considered unacceptable, but also fully to assert its budget authority role within the Community financial system.
Emilio Colombo
Simone VEIL: July 1979 - January 1982
In the spring of 1979 I was Minister for Health and Social Security when, a few months before the first elections to the European Parliament by universal suffrage, President Giscard d'Estaing asked me if I would be willing to head a list of candidates for this election.
I accepted this honour without hesitation, having been a militant supporter of European integration since the end of the war, regarding it as the only way to set the seal on reconciliation between France and Germany and avoid a recurrence of the tragedies of the past.
After the excellent result achieved by my list, President Giscard d'Estaing, who was sensitive to symbols of reconciliation and hence aware of the significance of a former deportee, suggested to the other governments that I should be made President of the new Parliament, something that I had never imagined happening. That is how, on 13 July 1979, by an absolute majority in the second round, I came to be elected President of the new assembly.
The task that now faced me was not without its problems. First of all, the nature of the new Members' mandate had changed now that they were elected by universal suffrage, as opposed to the former situation in which members of the Assembly were representatives of the national parliaments. The democratic underpinning had now become more direct. In addition, Parliament's rules of procedure turned out to be inappropriate for its new role, not least in budgetary terms.
To this was added a geographical issue. Up to then the European Assembly had usually met in Luxembourg, where most of its officials also lived. In Strasbourg, the Parliament had neither its own chamber nor any offices, and therefore had to squat for one week each month in the premises of the Council of Europe, bringing all the necessary documents with it from Luxembourg. One can imagine that this peripatetic existence was not to the liking of some of the parliamentarians, so that I had to contain a certain level of disgruntlement. It took months for this new modus operandi to become second nature. We still had to continue to hold a few sessions in Luxembourg. It was there that I remember with emotion welcoming the Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat not long before he was assassinated.
The Members of the European Parliament, as one may imagine, wanted to assert their new authority in budgetary matters. The budget that had been drawn up for 1980 turned out to have slightly exceeded the ceiling allocated by the treaties to the European Parliament. As the point at issue was combating world hunger, I unhesitatingly declared this budget to have been duly adopted. The French Government immediately brought an action before the Court of Justice. It took some time for agreement to be reached between the Parliament, the Council and the national governments, particularly the one in Paris.
I remember the real interest that the new European Parliament aroused outside the Community in those now distant days. This interest and curiosity was all the greater because the Presidency of the Parliament had been given to a woman, which at that time was still looked upon with some disapproval. I was able to observe this when I went to Lomé for the signing of the treaties with the African, Pacific and Caribbean countries.
I remember that both inside and outside the Community I always received a warm welcome, including in the United States, Canada, China and Japan. Whenever possible I involved the Commission permanent representatives in these visits. Throughout a presidency that lasted two and a half years, I never had any difficulty in always being seen by myself and others as standing above party divisions and representing the whole of Parliament.
In short, this sometimes difficult, always fascinating presidency has remained the most rewarding period of my life. I look back on it with nostalgia, as I do on the subsequent years I spent at the European Parliament before returning to the French Government in 1993.
Simone Veil
Lord Henry PLUMB: January 1987 - July 1989
On reflecting on the key moments of my presidency of the EP, my mind immediately went back to the election which preceded it, simply because it was an exciting, close-run thing. My rival - and eventual successor in post - Enrique Baron Crespo and I both ran campaigns which were energetic but which contained no element of personal rancour or invective.
After my victory, by the slim margin of five votes, we could remain friends, holding differing views on the details of "Europe", but with a common commitment to making its institutions work in the service of the peoples of our continent. I believe that is the way our politics, at whatever level, should always function, and regret that they seldom do.
Every President of the EP since 1979 can say that their period in office coincided with a time of important change. That is a reflection of the fact that our institution, and indeed political Europe as a whole, has been constantly evolving.
Critics may argue over the ideal balance between the deepening and widening aspects of that process, but what is undeniable is that both have taken place and, however imperfect each stage has been, great progress has been achieved.
My key moments as President were linked to one of those crucially important evolutionary stages in the history of the Parliament and of the Union, namely the Single European Act (SEA).
After a period of comparative stagnation in the early 1980s, the "Big Idea" which pulled Europe forward was the development, via the Single European Act (SEA) from a common market towards an integrated economy, which in turn led in the direction of the Union and the subsequent evolutionary stages.
I am proud that the Parliament had played a significant role in making the case for the single market and when the SEA came into force, just six months after I became President, I knew that a new era had begun in Parliament. Within a very short time, draft legislation under the new two-readings dispensation would begin to arrive and would have to be dealt with expeditiously and efficiently, if our institution was not to lose the opportunity of demonstrating our growing maturity. This required swift re-organisation at both political and administrative levels. A much more sophisticated legislative programme had to be put in place and the sectoral parliamentary committees, suitably staffed, focused on the new, tight timetables.
All this was terra incognita for all concerned, members and officials alike, and the fact that Parliament managed successfully to adapt to the new arrangements with only a very few roughnesses I consider a real achievement.
I recall three moments thereafter which I believe demonstrate that the world outside had taken notice of the progress achieved and had begun to take on board the fact that "Europe" was no longer a collection of countries, but a more-than-embryonic entity, which had to be taken seriously.
Perhaps the most important of these was a presidential visit to the Soviet Union, whose leadership had decided to recognise the Community as such and to develop relations between the Supreme Soviet and the EP. We were not to know at the time that the end of the Communist empire was but a few years away, but it was obvious from my discussions with President Augusts Voss of the Supreme Soviet and with the State President, Andrei Gromyko, that part of the changes that were already underway in Moscow involved a new policy which accorded greater importance to the European Community and to the EP.
The second such moment was my attendance at a meeting of South American heads of Government in San Juan de Costa Rica. They were striving, much as the European "Founding Fathers" had done some thirty years before, to create institutions through which common objectives could be achieved. (The Andean Parliament and Mercosur were two of the fruits of these efforts.) What struck me most was the admiration which those leaders had for the European enterprise and their appreciation of the degree of success we had already secured. Our adventure had been unique in political history and we had become a role model for others.
The third key moment which I recall was the visit of Pope John-Paul to address a Plenary Session of the EP. It became famous for the dramatic confrontation between the visitor and the Rev. Ian Paisley. This was a duel which was a gift to the tabloid press, even though it lasted but a few seconds, and, since I had anticipated it, the incident was always under control. But the underlying importance of the visit was a further recognition, from outside the Community, that political and institutional Europe was a reality which had now to be taken account of in international relations.
These three memories of my presidency lead me, in conclusion, to draw attention to the paradox that the successes of the EU and its institutions are frequently more apparent to those looking at the Union from the outside. The challenge remains to make those successes more obvious to the citizens of Europe.
Lord Henry Plumb
Enrique BARÓN CRESPO: July 1989 - January 1992
The period during which I was President of the European Parliament was a time marked by a historic leap for Europe. I began my presidency in July 1989 as President of the Parliament of the Community, and I concluded it proposing, on behalf of the EP, the birth of the European Union at the Maastricht European Council.
The first key moment was the fall, on 9 November 1989, of the Berlin wall, symbolising the disappearance of the iron curtain which had divided Europe into two and presaging the end of the cold war. My first reaction after welcoming the event was to invite President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl to appear together before the plenary of Parliament that very same month, in order to give an active impetus to the German unification process, for which a temporary EP committee was created.
From then on, event followed event at a dizzying speed. In my initial speech to the European Council in Strasbourg in December 1989, I expressed Parliament's strong desire to see all the Member States work together in order to open the door to the accession of the countries of central and eastern Europe.
On that occasion, I put forward, on behalf of Parliament, a ten-point plan in which it was proposed to expand the existing IGC for the establishment of economic and monetary union (EMU) and to set up another one for political union. To ensure that this reform did not rest in the governments' hands alone, I proposed that the EP should also be involved, in order to reinforce the reform's democratic nature and efficiency. Thus began the process leading to the proposal and subsequent creation of the Preparatory Interinstitutional Conference (PIC). That led, in March 1990, to the first-ever invitation in the history of the Community to a president of the European Parliament to address the Council, and, specifically, to introduce our proposal for a PIC.
From that moment on, the agenda was dominated by the swiftly increasing pace of history, as one event followed on another's heels. The countries in process of freeing themselves from totalitarian communism wished to receive the President of the European Parliament, a body which they saw as incarnating the democracy and freedom they had for so many years yearned for.
The significant events of 1990 included an invitation in February from the Polish Diet to explain the EP's view of matters, and, later, similar invitations from the Hungarian and Czechoslovak Parliaments; and, on 3 October, German Unity Day, with a ceremony in the Bundestag with President von Weiszäcker, in the company of the Commission President, Jacques Delors, and myself as President of the European Parliament, followed that very day by a speech which I gave in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt, a building symbolising Germany's constitutional values.
In that time of democratic effervescence and reform, relations with the national parliaments came to take on their full significance. On 29 November 1990, in Montecitorio (Rome), we held the joint 'Assizes', i.e. the first-ever conference bringing together the European Parliament and the parliaments of the Member States, which adopted a joint resolution endorsing the concept of the European Union. In December, I had the privilege of submitting that resolution to the Rome European Council, which decided in favour of holding two parallel IGCs, one on EMU and the other on political union.
Over the length of 1991, the meetings of the Preparatory Interinstitutional Conference made it possible, for the first time, for twelve representatives of the EP to engage in dialogue with the twelve governments, the Council and the Commission. Parliament's representation was able to draw up a 'shortlist' of proposals which proved of major use in introducing a number of key subjects, for the most part deriving from the draft treaty text adopted in 1984 and enriched by experience. The main points were: European citizenship and the single currency as pillars; codecision as an ordinary legislative procedure; participation in the election of the Commission President, whose term of office was extended from two years to five; and recognition of European political parties.
In addition to the intensive pace of change within the Community, the European scene witnessed a number of what can only be called political earthquakes, in which the EP too took part.
The most dramatic of these was the tragic dismemberment of former Yugoslavia - a process which put the Community's internal cohesion to the test. Here, I made all possible efforts on behalf of the EP to find peaceful solutions, with the presidents of the parliaments of the Yugoslav federation and its republics.
Nonetheless, the process that had the greatest impact was the implosion of the Soviet Union, which threw up moments of particular tension in the visit of Foreign Minister Shevardnadze and the subsequent meeting with Mr Gorbachev.
Another major concern was our support for the difficult and arduous peace process in the Middle East. On the day the peace conference opened in Madrid, I expounded our position to the Israeli Knesset, while the EP was giving a formal hearing in plenary to King Hussein of Jordan and President Mubarak.
Happily, it was not only in Europe that the winds of freedom were blowing.
In other latitudes, I was enabled to express Europe's solidarity with and support for the process of democratic transition before the plenary of the Chilean Congress in Valparaíso, and to hand over the Sakharov Prize to awardees incarnating the universal values of democracy and human rights: Nelson Mandela, Alexander Dubcek, and the husband and son of that remarkable exponent of dignity and perseverance, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Another key moment was the signing, following long and complex negotiations, of the deed of purchase of Parliament's present site in Brussels. This has enabled us not only to hold plenaries in Brussels, but to cope with the successive enlargements. I also managed to secure the agreement that made possible our present buildings in Strasbourg.
However, the moment with the highest emotional charge was, surely, that of my final speech as President of the European Parliament, before the European Council in Maastricht. In that speech, I called on the heads of state and government meeting there to act together to bring about the European Union, and I expressed with all firmness Parliament's positions in favour of a more democratic and effective Union. The outcome of the IGC allowed us to conclude that our voice had been heeded. A new stage had been opened up in the construction of Europe, which, it is to be hoped, will now, after Amsterdam, Nice and the constitution, come to fruition in the Treaty of Lisbon.
Enrique Barón Crispon