Results of the European Council (Brussels, 13-14 March 2008) (debate) President The next item is the debate on the European Council report and Commission statement - Results of the European Council (Brussels, 13-14 March 2008). Janez Janša President-in-Office. - (SL) Mr President, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen. The March part-session of the European Council started with an address by the President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, whose speech gave us a good foundation for debate and decision-making on the major topics. There were three of these: continuation of economic growth and the creation of new jobs, response to climate change, and stabilisation of financial markets. Three decisions of the part-session summarise its achievements. We launched an ambitious and more modern three-year cycle of the Lisbon Strategy, which offers a better balance between care for people and the environment on the one hand and the competitive, knowledge-based market economy on the other. Secondly, we confirmed the basic principles and schedule for adoption of the energy and climate change package. Thirdly, we defined further measures to stabilise the financial markets. The new cycle of the Lisbon Strategy primarily emphasises implementation of the reforms. Lately we have often witnessed some erroneous perceptions that the reason for the rise in retail prices and unstable financial markets is that the European Union has a weak economic foundation. The truth is precisely the opposite: it is the relatively firm foundation of the European economy that explains why the uncertainties in the global financial market and the price of crude oil and other commodities have had fewer consequences for the European Union than would have been the case had the economic foundation of the European Union been weak. Let us glance at some of the economic indicators. The European Union's public finance deficit has fallen by more than half since 2005. Public debt has gone down to less than 60%. Economic growth reached almost 3% in 2007. The labour market is offering 6.5 million more jobs than two years ago. These results are largely due to the renewed Lisbon Strategy. These are grounds for sober pride and greater self-confidence, but not self-satisfaction. At a time of ever-increasing unpredictability in the global economy, it would be very wrong to rest on one's laurels and discontinue the reforms. At the launch of the second cycle of the Lisbon Strategy, or the second Lisbon cycle, the European Council stressed that in the period between 2008 and 2010 we must direct all our efforts primarily towards consistent implementation of the reforms. We are supported by the stability of the integrated guidelines, which are still valid, and by the adopted specific recommendations, on the basis of which the Member States will be able to renew and realise their national reform programmes even faster. The priority areas will remain the same: knowledge and innovation, stimulation of entrepreneurial potential, modernisation of the labour markets, and climate change and energy. For each of these areas we have defined concrete measures based on the recognition, famously summarised by Francis Bacon four hundred years ago, that knowledge is power. In the European Community today, the importance of knowledge is as great as or greater than that attached to coal in the past. It is the catalyst for economic growth, structural adjustments and social inclusion. For that reason the European Council introduced the 'fifth freedom' in the field of knowledge and innovation. The 'fifth freedom' will eliminate barriers to the free flow of knowledge. It will provide mobility for talented people and open access to knowledge and innovation, which should attract even more Europeans to take part in creative processes. The establishment of the new European Institute of Innovation and Technology, confirmed two weeks ago by the European Parliament, also offers new opportunities for the utilisation of Europe's research and development potential. To strengthen the competitiveness of companies, particularly small and medium enterprises, the European Union is planning measures to facilitate operations and speed up development in the unified market. In view of the fact that small and medium enterprise employs the greatest number of people and is an important force in research and development, it has to be provided with suitable legislation, easier access to sources of finance and, most of all, more intensive cooperation in innovation. The social dimension of the Lisbon Strategy was strongly stressed at this session of the European Council. I think it was given the strongest support to date. We have reconfirmed the importance of investment in human resources. Through learning and training we can eliminate inequality and poverty, reduce youth unemployment, create new and better jobs, and ease the transition to a knowledge-based economy. That is why we have invited the Commission to prepare a review of the knowledge requirements of the European Union up to 2020. At the same time, the Member States have committed themselves to implementing the common principles of flexicurity, increasing social inclusion and consistently linking economic, employment and social policies. The adopted conclusions reflect the positions of the European Parliament and European social partners. Knowledge is also of crucial importance when dealing with climate change. Only with the help of new technologies will we achieve the ambitious targets we adopted at last year's spring session of the European Council. The strategic energy technology plan forms the basis of the coordinated European policy in this field, which will provide support for ecologically sound, green industry. As confirmed by our social partners at the tripartite summit held at the fringes of the European Council session, climate change brings opportunities for all, that is to say both companies and employees. The ecoindustry alone is growing by 5% a year and today employs 3 400 000 people. Within the energy and climate package we have reached an agreement on the basic principles and the schedule. This is probably the most resounding achievement of this session of the European Council. Our ambitions in the fields of climate change and energy were reconfirmed. It is important that less than two months after the package was published on 23 January, we have reached an accord on two key elements for furthering the debate on basic principles and schedule. The leaders of the Member States have committed themselves to reaching an agreement by the end of 2008 and thus enabling adoption of the package within the deadline, or at any event before the end of the current European Parliament mandate. Ladies and gentlemen, success is down to you too. Only if we adopt the package within the deadline will we justify the expectations of all European citizens and give a positive sign to our partners in the world, especially in the light of the negotiations on the overall post-Kyoto agreement next year in Copenhagen. I would like to underline this last point in particular. The European Council has confirmed three fundamental principles which will guide us in the sharing of tasks and targets among the Member States. Firstly, economic success and cost effectiveness; secondly, solidarity and justice; and thirdly, transparency. I was pleased to note that the Member States no longer regard this process as a sharing of burdens, but as a new opportunity for development. I am also aware of the European Council's achievement in agreeing to shape a unified European system for limiting emissions and trading in them, and thereby rewarding the current system of national limits. The European Council also faced the possibility that, in the event of failure of the international negotiations, it should assist the energy-intensive sectors in the European Union, because their relocation to countries with lower environmental standards would risk losing jobs in the European Union, at the same time increasing greenhouse gases in general. An important item in the agenda was the question of liberalisation of the internal energy market. It was clear, even at the time when the Commission published its first proposal for the directives in the early nineties, that it would not be easy to establish a unified market, but that it would be a protracted process. Seventeen years later, with the European Council calling for adoption of the political agreement by June of this year, we are getting closer to the target. Here, too, the key to success will be strengthened cooperation with the European Parliament. Melting glaciers, longer droughts and changes in precipitation patterns have a direct effect on geostrategic and security interests. The report by the High Representative, Mr Solana, and the Commission on the security aspects of climate change realistically presents the situation and the risks facing the European Union. This was first document of its kind to have been debated. The European Council supported this report as a basis for further action. Energy and climate issues will be the main topics in all future summits between the European Union and third countries or regions until the end of June 2008, more especially with Japan, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Russian Federation and the United States of America. To enable us to speak and act in unison, we will need to bring our positions closer in next few months. Now something about the financial markets. In response to the crisis in the financial markets, the European Council has unanimously confirmed the need for four measures: firstly, increasing transparency; secondly, improving evaluation standards; thirdly, strengthening credit status; and fourthly, improving market efficiency and giving structural incentives. The state asset funds play a positive role in securing capital and liquidity, even in these uncertain times. However, the appearance of new players whose investment strategies are not totally transparent gives rise to some doubts about uneconomic practices. The leaders of the Member States have agreed on an initiative to design a voluntary code of practice for such funds. The European Council devoted a lot of time to an agreement on strengthening the Barcelona process. In my opinion, it was a significant achievement that we managed to place in an institutional framework a debate which had hitherto been informal and closed, or limited to closed circles and informal channels. According to the agreement reached at the last session of the European Council, all the Member States of the European Union and other Mediterranean countries will participate in the Barcelona process, that is to say the Mediterranean Union. In view of standard practice within the Barcelona process, it is entirely understandable that the European Parliament, as an exceedingly important player in the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, will be appropriately involved in the debate on future steps. Because the Slovenian Presidency is striving for a balanced approach to all the European Union's neighbours, we would like to point out the eastern dimension of European policies towards our neighbours, which must be strengthened in parallel with the Mediterranean dimension. We expect the June session of the European Council to debate these issues in detail on the basis of the proposal put forward by our Polish colleagues. Ladies and gentlemen, the tripartite social summit and the European Council realise that no single measure can be effective on its own without being meaningfully integrated with other measures. At the same time the integrated measures, be it the Lisbon Strategy or the energy and climate measures, are not enough unless we are all fully aware of their importance and contribute to their implementation. In the long run these topics demand much more than impersonal measures; they require fundamental shifts and a change in habits, that is to say a change in our way of life. Confucius said: 'If you are thinking one year ahead, sow a seed; if you are thinking ten years ahead, plant trees; if you are thinking a hundred years ahead, educate the people.' All of us together should learn to live a more creative life. We must learn to exchange information quickly and to adopt environmentally friendly habits. The most effective teaching method is by good example. For that reason the governments of the Member States agreed at the European Council to lower the energy consumption of their own buildings and car fleets and to secure a fast internet connection for all schools by 2010. After the March session of the European Council we can say that the debates and conclusions were devoted to the most pressing European issues of the moment. However, the media did not find it very attractive because - and I regard this as a success - we managed to avoid certain debates which would have diverted our attention from the key developmental issues without reaching any solutions. This was one of the reasons why we managed to take a few more steps forward, but there is still more to be done. José Manuel Barroso President of the European Commission. - Mr President, over the past few years, we have had many opportunities to discuss together the importance of partnership. That the European Union's ambitions are such that Europeans at every level have to be engaged. That we need a common vision about where we are heading. That the European Union institutions need to work together to deliver on our citizens' expectations. After the Spring European Council, we can see clearly the tasks before us, for the rest of the year and beyond. I would like to congratulate the Slovenian Presidency and Prime Minister Janša for the very competent way in which he chaired this European Council. I believe now we can better see how partnership will make us progress, namely in terms of concrete delivery. This must be a truly decisive year for our ambition concerning a 'Europe of results' - concrete results for our citizens. We must prove that Europe has the strength and the focus to withstand global pressures and to face up to global challenges. And we must demonstrate that the European Union is the right way to bring in the changes that are needed. The Spring European Council was a moment of truth. Would the ambitions, namely regarding the new Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs, but also the ambitions in terms of our policy against climate change and for energy policy, would those ambitions that had been set when the economic climate was more favourable, still hold when we got into rougher waters? Before the European Council, many had doubts about it. I myself spoke about the need for Europe to keep its commitments so that we could be credible. After the European Council, I am happy to say that we had a very good, substantive debate in which the European Council not only confirmed that it remained fully committed to the targets it had set for energy and climate change, but also backed them up with agreement on precise deadlines. Also, the European Council confirmed the goals regarding the renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs. Let me highlight some of the issues discussed in more detail, focusing in particular on how the Commission intends to take work forward. As has become the tradition at the Spring meeting, the European Council reviewed the economic situation in Europe. The emerging picture is a mixed one: while the economic fundamentals in Europe remain sound, the global economic outlook is deteriorating as a result of the slowdown of economic activity in the US. Confidence in our capacity to tackle the future therefore needs to be coupled with vigilance. Confidence and vigilance. This is also true against the backdrop of the continuing turmoil on the international financial markets. The message from the European Council has been clear: all authorities in the European Union stand ready to take regulatory and supervisory action if necessary. Now it will be up to the ECOFIN Council to implement swiftly and vigorously the road map agreed last autumn, strengthening the transparency and functioning of financial markets. The European Union must be vigilant - and be seen to be vigilant - as the situation evolves. I am also pleased that the European Council endorsed the Commission paper on sovereign wealth funds, subscribing to the need for a common European approach and the objective of agreeing at international level on a voluntary code of conduct for sovereign wealth funds and defining principles for recipient countries at international level. The European Council also reaffirmed its commitment to sustained reform efforts through the full implementation of the revised Lisbon strategy. The consensus at the European Council around this priority was indeed impressive. And we gave Lisbon a fresh impetus with the launch of an ambitious new cycle. I was pleased that the European Council followed our suggestion to give particular emphasis to investing in people and, notably, to reducing the number of young people who cannot read properly and the number of early school leavers. Flexicurity is also key. We must build on the recent, very positive agreement between social partners and see those principles translated into results across the European Union Member States. Another example is the goal of a 'fifth freedom': the freedom of circulation of knowledge. The European Council set out key measures required to make it a reality. For example, high-speed internet is to be made available to all schools by 2010, and ambitious targets will also be set for household access. We should now press ahead to ensure that the fruits of reforms are felt at every level. The objectives - like investing in people, unlocking business potential, making the internal market work, investing in research and innovation - must be backed up with improvements felt by people and businesses on the ground. This was also a point many of you emphasised in the debate we had in Parliament before the European Council. I count on the continued support of this House to ensure that action at European and national level delivers on the objectives we have set ourselves. The European Council also set out a clear road map and gave new impetus to ongoing legislative work. I particularly want to mention, as Prime Minister Janša just did, the two key deadlines set by the European Council, on the internal market in energy and on the climate change and renewable energy package. These deadlines are not just about 'tidying up the desk' before the institutional changes of next year. They are about bringing in essential changes as quickly as possible, so that the European Union can lead the world in this very important dossier. On the energy internal market package, we need to reach an agreement to show that institutions are able to deliver in the interests of citizens, consumers and businesses, and here we committed to trying to reach political agreement by June 2008. The Commission remains of the view that full ownership unbundling is the best way forward, but we have continued to make clear that we are ready to consider alternatives that are the functional equivalent of that. And we will continue close cooperation with this House and with the Council in order to help bridge the remaining gaps. On the climate and renewables package, political agreement by the end of this year will be the clearest possible sign to our international partners - a sign that Europe is serious about its commitments. This would enable adoption of the proposals within Parliament's legislative term early in 2009. This is vital as we enter the final straight towards an international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen next year. This international agreement is our top priority, and is the single best way of both cutting global emissions and ensuring that our energy-intensive industries will have the level playing field they need. In the mean time, we should spell out, in the revised emission trading scheme, the steps we will take in the event that there are problems for certain sectors or subsectors that face the risk of carbon leakage because they are unable to pass through costs. The Commission, together with all stakeholders and, in particular, with the social partners, will step up work to gather data and identify the necessary solution to apply in the future in such cases. I know that the European Parliament is devoting particular attention to these two dossiers. I hope that you will be able to join the Council in the deadlines so that we can give credibility to our negotiating position at global level. In a number of areas, the European Council looked forward to specific proposals from the Commission in the coming months. I would like to give you a flavour of three areas on which we will be working to come forward with proposals before the summer. First, the renewal of our social agenda. Our objective is to pave the way towards a European wide consensus on a social vision for the 21st century: a social vision which responds to new challenges, such as globalisation and demographic change; a vision which is based on the principle of providing 'life chances' to everyone through opportunities, access and solidarity; a vision looking at social challenges for society as a whole, addressing issues such as youth, education, migration, ageing as well as intercultural dialogue; a vision that, of course, takes more specifically into consideration the problems of poverty that we are still facing in our Europe. We will build on the ongoing consultation following our social stock-taking, and make concrete proposals - exactly as we did with the Internal Market Review last November. The Social Agenda Forum that we are organising in May is a good opportunity for us to test this approach. Secondly, the forthcoming proposal on the Small Business Act. The key to our thinking is the need to look at the whole life cycle of an SME. There is little value in helping start-ups if SMEs are then blocked from growth. The business world has made it very clear that what small businesses need is not another political declaration but some real action. That means removing obstacles to growth, simplifying regulation, promoting e-government, helping access to public procurement and cutting unnecessary delays: generally speaking, cutting red tape. I look forward to discussing with Parliament how to take these ideas forward. The third area where we will swiftly bring forward proposals is the Mediterranean Union. The Commission strongly supports the commitment to give fresh impetus to our Mediterranean policy. I am glad that there is now a consensus that the project will move ahead with all 27 Member States, taking the Barcelona Process one step further. And I am very proud of the confidence that the European Council expressed in the Commission by asking us to come forward with the necessary proposals to define the modalities for this Union for the Mediterranean. The European Council recognised that the Commission is best placed to devise an institutional architecture compatible with the Treaty and with the range of activities and forums which already exist. We will be working quickly to find the right institutional architecture to deliver a new level of ambition, one which helps us to move ahead swiftly on tangible projects with our partners across the Mediterranean Sea. But, let us make no mistake: institutions and instruments will not deliver on their own. What we need most to turn ambition into action is political will - on both sides of the Mediterranean. We can come with proposals for new institutional arrangements, but if there is no political will on both sides, we will not produce concrete results. I know that this is a concern that many honourable Members share, and we will of course keep you fully involved in further work. Indeed, I will have the opportunity to address the Euro-Med Parliamentary Assembly in Athens later this week. I believe the European Council was indeed an important step forward. Now the EU partnership needs to deliver, and make 2008 a landmark year for Europe. Joseph Daul on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Mr President of the European Council, Mr President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the recent European Council was largely devoted to defining the new cycle of the Lisbon Strategy and took place in a very difficult international economic and financial context. The indicators within the Union are, however, somewhat encouraging: more jobs, a growth rate of 2.9% in 2007 and falling budget deficits. This progress is above all the fruit of the business restructuring efforts of course, but it is also the result of a policy of reform and sound administration on the part of most of the Member States. These efforts have been encouraged by the Commission and I congratulate it on its determination and steady work in that direction. The wind blowing from the other side of the Atlantic does not augur well and the growth forecasts for 2008 are lower than we might have hoped. In such a context, it is very tempting to withdraw into oneself, to suspend the reforms and to protect one's borders while waiting for brighter days. There is a great temptation - and our political opponents give in to it much too often - to spend money that we do not have, to make the people of Europe believe that everything can continue as before. Our parliamentary group is genuinely in favour of a responsible policy, a policy of movement, reform and solidarity. We would ask the Commission to present to us its economic policy guidelines and its employment guidelines so that they can be adopted as soon as possible. The national authorities must explain more clearly to their populations the benefits of the reforms envisaged under the Lisbon Strategy. These reforms are often misrepresented but not sufficiently implemented. It is still difficult for them to make their presence felt. Our group will nevertheless continue to defend them and to oppose those who, in order to flatter their electorate, strive to tone them down or postpone them indefinitely. We want to go even further and send the European knowledge policy into overdrive. We propose promoting the free movement of researchers, students and scientists and adopting a unified regime on the protection of intellectual property rights. We call for the removal of obstacles to the mutual recognition of qualifications and the modernisation of our European universities with financial backing from the EU. Ladies and gentlemen, the European Council's second task was to clarify the conditions in which the ambitious climate change targets adopted in March 2007 will be implemented. These details were essential in order to enable the firms concerned eventually to plan for the future. Indeed, making significant efforts to 'decarbonise' the economy must not affect the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. Finally, I welcome the agreement on the Union for the Mediterranean proposed by France to the Council on the basis that the Barcelona process has not produced the desired results. This initiative seeks to give a boost to Euro-Mediterranean relations. We are all aware of the extent to which the challenges of development, migration and political stability in these countries affect us directly. We therefore hope that this project will mark a turning point in our relations with the Mediterranean countries, which must become more concrete, more effective and, above all, more political, with a view to achieving real peace in the Middle East. Martin Schulz on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic situation in the European Union is stable but it is under threat. That is the conclusion drawn by this European Council. Growth is still stable and employment is increasing, but it is nonetheless under threat. The question is this: what is the source of this threat? The threat comes from the slowdown of economic activity in the US, which is one outcome of the financial crisis in the major corporate banks, in other words, in the investment banks, in that country. President Barroso, you have said that as one of its conclusions, the Council states that we in the European Union must be ready to take regulatory and supervisory action if necessary in response to this development in the international financial markets. Let me ask you this: when, if not now, should this action be initiated? Now is the time to look at the precise mechanisms by which the 'Wild West' capitalism pursued by investors in the international financial markets is putting Europe's growth at risk. In my view, as one of its conclusions this European Council should have set out in a far more detailed fashion which instruments we should use in order to exercise this scrutiny. (Applause) Mr President, we have taken note of the fact that this Council has made an effort to talk in slightly more detail about the social dimension of Europe. However, rather than offering a coherent concept, it does so on a 'piecemeal' basis. The fifth freedom, for example, Prime Minister Janša, is part of social policy. You are right, knowledge is power, that is absolutely right. However, knowledge also creates opportunities for access to economic development in the world, and knowledge creates opportunities to have a stake in an increasingly diverse labour market. In all occupational sectors, the best-placed worker is the one who is well-qualified, who has access to knowledge and who is in a position to update this knowledge on an ongoing basis. For that reason, access to knowledge also means access to social justice. When we talk about the social dimension of Europe, to us this means that we must adopt an integral approach. It does not mean merely passing a few comments here and there about social policy. That is why, from our perspective - from the Socialist Group's perspective - the Council has once again fallen short of our expectations in relation to the social dimension of Europe. That is why we listened with great interest when you said that the Commission is going to undertake coherent stock-taking of the social dimension of the internal market, the European Union's social dimension, this summer and will present the results of this process to us. We will use this as a yardstick to gauge your performance. You are aiming to make progress here, and we will be watching to see how you match up. However, we will be gauging your performance in another sense as well. It is not acceptable that the Council - and I am turning to you, Prime Minister Janša, and to you, Commission President - should be ignoring the opinions of the European Parliament. I have here a list of the official documents submitted to the Council. It includes eight documents submitted by various formations of the Council, an Opinion of the EESC on the employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy) and a resolution of the Committee of the Regions. There is not a single document from the European Parliament on this list, not even the document we produced about the Lisbon Strategy. This is a lamentable state of affairs, in my Group's view, because it shows that you are not taking the social dimension, the European Parliament itself and the opinion of this House sufficiently seriously. (Applause) Some progress has been made: that was what my colleagues said when we asked them during our Group debate what they thought of climate policy. Yes, it is true that climate change is the key challenge that we face, and substantial progress has been made at this Council, with a balance having been struck between climate policy requirements, on the one hand, and industry requirements, on the other. Achieving this balance is a task for all the institutions. Just so that there are no misunderstandings: there are certain industry lobbyists who will interpret this to mean that there are not enough checks and not enough pressure on industry when the Council makes pronouncements of this kind. In fact, the opposite is the case. We will only achieve our climate targets if industry plays its part. By the same token, however, we will only achieve our targets if we allow industry to play its part. Both aspects are essential. If we want to tackle climate change, we have to do so in Europe, and that is why the international agreements rightly give European industry the chance to compete on an equal footing with industry elsewhere in the world. That conclusion was the right one and we greatly welcome it. Let me make a final comment about the Mediterranean Union, which you will now find mentioned on page 19 of the Conclusions, and that itself is another message from the Council. We are pleased that there is now clarity on this issue, and you are right in what you have been saying about neighbourhood policy in the Mediterranean. Prime Minister Janša has rightly pointed out that partnership policy here must entail partnership policy elsewhere. My colleague Mr Swoboda will comment in a moment on the Eastern dimension in particular on behalf of our Group, as we will be putting forward our own set of proposals on this issue. Let me conclude with an appraisal. This was a Council of normality. It fell short of the mark in terms of social policy: that has unfortunately become the norm in the European Union, but it is something that can be addressed. It was 'business as usual' as far as the Mediterranean Union was concerned. We saw the 'helicopter method' being deployed here: 'whip up a storm of dust and before the dust settles, the helicopter takes off again'. We need something more tangible here, you are quite right. If these tangible results are to be delivered - and this final sentence is directed at you, Mr President - they must be delivered through cooperation with the European Parliament. The fact is that anything that is decided within the framework of the Mediterranean Union requires funding from the European Parliament, which is why it is extremely important that the Conclusions should state that the European Parliament will be fully involved in the future structures of the Mediterranean Union. Thank you very much for your attention. I would also like to thank our unfailingly cheerful colleagues from the CSU who have had to show me such forbearance. (Applause) Adina-Ioana Vălean on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, one thing is certain: without the pressure of collective action and accountability, Member States would lack the will to act on climate change, yet the inconvenient truth for the EU is that the summit conclusions are often long on rhetoric and short on delivery. We can already see signs of Member States looking for ways to cut corners and costs on last year's political commitments, even though the Stern report of 2006 warned that the costs of action now will be far less than the costs of inaction later. Some of the language in the final conclusion suggests that the urgency and imperative of responding to climate change is already waning. This would spell disaster, both for our climate and for our credibility. Somewhat overlooked in this debate is energy efficiency, the simplest and most cost-effective way of reducing our overall emissions. An early draft of the Council conclusions committed Member States to a 10% reduction in energy use in government buildings and car fleets, yet now reads simply as 'substantial progress'. It would be a small but significant gesture showing that governments are leading by example. Fiscal instruments to stimulate better environmental behaviour should indeed be exploited. ETS has proved its worth and been taken up as a global standard for providing economic incentives for emission reductions. Green taxes such as reduced VAT rates can also have a similar effect, by stimulating demand for low consumption vehicles and domestic appliances. Turning to the economic aspects of the summit, the conclusions boast that the fundamentals of the EU economy remain sound, yet this is not how the outlook is perceived by many of our citizens facing higher bills and growing indebtedness, which should caution us against excessive optimism. The underlying principles of the Lisbon Strategy are worth recalling: structural reforms, fiscal discipline and targeted investments in productive areas that will deliver future growth. EU Member States remain - with one or two honourable exceptions - well short of their commitment to spend 3% of their GDP on R&D. Now we talk of a fifth freedom for knowledge and innovation, but we should not forget that we have not yet managed to complete the original four freedoms, especially in the area of free movement of labour and services across the whole of the EU. Finally, support for SMEs is rightly identified as key to economic growth and innovation. We must enable them to reap the full benefit of the internal market, yet the Council could achieve much for European competitiveness by bringing the long-running disputes over a European patent and private company statute to a successful conclusion. The Council conclusions cautiously declare that the challenge is to deliver. Parliament, for its part, certainly will. Brian Crowley on behalf of the UEN Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office and the Commission President for their contributions today. It is quite interesting that, when we speak about the threats to growth and the economy, a lot of people fall back into their default position: you are either in favour of capitalism or against capitalism. They never see that there is a middle ground as well and an area where you can operate. There is an old saying in the investment platform: 'When there is blood in the streets, there is money to be made.' The reality is that the real threat to employment creation and economic growth within the European Union is not so much the subprime market crisis in America but our inability or unwillingness to take risks and be innovative in finding opportunities in these crisis areas. It is interesting that, if you look back over the last 100 years, at every stage of industrial development and at every stage of economic development either the US or the European Union has been at the core of creating a new industry, creating a new economic upturn, because of a difficulty that was perceived in some areas and was grabbed in another area. One of the successes to come out of the European Council is that the Council has seen that there are risks and dangers - whether it is climate change or the fact that innovation and technology requirements are increased or the regulatory burden upon SMEs - but there are also opportunities. By taking action now we can take the long-term view, as the Prime Minister said by using the Confucius analogy: by planting a tree, we are looking 10 years down the line. That is the real way that we can achieve true growth and development within the European Union in the short term, as well as setting solid foundations for the long term, even though some of the headlines that you read will tell you negative things. Today's headline in one of the newspapers is about Jaguar and Land Rover being taken over by an Indian company as an example of how the economic power has shifted from the West to the East. The reality is that corporate and sovereign wealth funds are investing in industry and investing in business. We must find a way to ensure that we not only capture that wealth and those funds but we guarantee that they return dividends into our own economies by creating greater economic growth and by creating more jobs. When we speak about innovation and technology, it is important to remember that 73% of the workforce in the European Union who will be working in 2017 are already in place. But only 10% of the technology that we will be using in 2017 is in existence today. So the requirement to invest further in educating our people, upskilling them, giving them new training and new knowledge to deal with the new economies is vitally important. The last point that I would make - and Mr Schulz touched on this in a very important way - is that the success of the European Union over the last 20 years has been predicated on the twin-track approach of economic growth and social development and protection. You cannot have one without the other. We must ensure at all stages of our economic development not just that the rich get richer - that is going to happen anyway - but that there is a greater opportunity for us to show generosity and solidarity amongst our people - not just in energy markets, not just in financial markets - to guarantee that we can all benefit from the growth and the creation that have occurred. Rebecca Harms on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, during the course of the debate, I had the impression that we were talking about two quite different events. I observed the Council on behalf of my Group, but I did not gain any impression at all from that event that it aimed to forge any new, more advanced, ambitious joint climate policy initiatives, for example. You may recall that shortly before the Council, Javier Solana unveiled his climate scenario from a security perspective. If the Greens had published something of the sort, which describes how climate change will escalate conflicts all over the world, intensifying pressure on the developed world in particular, everyone would probably have said, 'the Greens have lost the plot, putting forward such apocalyptic scenarios'. In fact, the Solana paper contains a lot of truth, and I am surprised that none of the valid points that it puts forward were taken up by the Council. Indeed, in areas where it should have been more consistent compared with what was presented last year, we see greater inconsistency. Our Federal Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in particular, of whom I was so proud last year, was the very person who battled for a delay, a slowdown and exemptions. Let us be under no illusion: if we make exemption rules for European industry in emissions trading the focal point of the Council at this time, then we must assume from the outset that the Council has failed. I think it is an extremely negative message to send out to the rest of the world if we talk about exemptions for emissions trading for the next decade. How, under those circumstances, can we achieve the ambitious goal of bringing the rest of the world on board in Poznan or Copenhagen? In my view, what has happened is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let me say this very clearly on behalf of my Group. We want proper emissions trading, not exemptions. We would rather be protecting at our external borders a European industry that is sustainable, rather than bowing to pressure, at this crucial juncture in the climate process, from the steel and automobile industries and other lobbyists who, as we see from a recent report, are already exerting direct and, indeed, excessive influence on decisions in Brussels. In my view, this was not an ambitious summit; it was fainthearted. That was not only due to the new role of Angela Merkel, who has ceased to be the Climate Chancellor. It was also due to the fact that so many countries in Europe are going it alone. Some countries are negotiating separately about visa agreements. Others are discussing their own approach to missile defence with the Americans. There is no unity on Kosovo or on the issue of energy security: the Germans are conducting their own business with Russia's Gasprom, and the Italians and Hungarians are also doing business on their own. The Mediterranean Union was actually just Mr Sarkozy's idea as a way of safeguarding uranium imports into France in exchange for arms and nuclear technology exports. In my view, the overall framework for this summit was extremely poor and its outcome is negatively influenced by far too much 'go-it-alone' and far too little commonality. To me, an ambitious approach is one thing; faintheartedness another, and my overall impression of this summit is its faintheartedness. That is certainly not good, but what is worse is that there is so little honesty about it in the House today. Dimitrios Papadimoulis Mr President, President of the Commission, President-in-Office of the Council, it is understandable, up to a point, that you should come here and try to whitewash the results of the summit. However, I expected greater frankness and greater modesty from you. Instead of simply congratulating each other and praising yourselves, I would also expect you talk about the shortcomings of your policy, and about your failures. I would expect you to talk about the social agenda, and the social failing that was conspicuous by its absence from the summit discussion: the 70 million poor, 20 million of whom are children. Instead of saying 'we have created jobs', you should say that those jobs are badly paid, with flexible employment terms, and that 20 million workers in the European Union are poor. You should talk about your interim review of your own Lisbon targets, Mr Barroso: from the three pillars of the Lisbon Strategy (competitiveness, the environment, cohesion), you have eliminated social, regional and territorial cohesion and you have downgraded environmental issues. On the subject of climate change, the President-in-Office himself admitted that a number of Member States meeting in the Council had been trying, from the start, to whittle away at your package of proposals, Mr Barroso, in the name of competitiveness. Instead of seeing how they can make their targets more ambitious and more binding when they go to Copenhagen, the Commission and the Council are trying to exempt large sectors of industry and the economy. To conclude, I would like to emphasise that at a time when even the most fanatical neo-liberals in the world are discovering the meaning of public intervention, at a time of falling stock markets and the credit crunch, the Council and the Commission are even now allowing a dogmatically unilateral, uncontrolled Central Bank to concern itself only with inflation, forgetting the risk posed to the European economy by a depression or zero growth. (Applause) Johannes Blokland on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) At last year's spring summit the European Council expressed its desire for an ambitious climate policy. On 23 January this came about in concrete form through legislative proposals, which were warmly welcomed by this Parliament. I am convinced that in order for it to be effective, we must ensure that a constructive agreement is reached between the Council and Parliament before Potsdam, and we must therefore avoid procedures that would render an agreement at first reading impossible. Such an agreement requires flexibility on the part of Parliament and certainly on the part of the Council. The European Union's efforts are valuable, but they would be more valuable still if the entire international community applied itself to the issue of the environment and climate. An important step was taken in Bali. I am delighted that the Council will continue to make intensive efforts to come to an agreement with all the participants at Potsdam. The Lisbon Strategy is being energetically implemented as a result of the last spring summit. That is good news. It suggests that the Heads of State or Government see the need for a social dimension. Can the Council President, Mr Janša, tell us what any more about this? Can we expect any additional proposals? Finally, freedom of expression is a good thing. It testifies to an adult attitude which is very wise. In the Netherlands a Member of Parliament is making a controversial film about Islam. I hope that Europe will speak as one if it should cause unexpected disruption. Roger Helmer Mr President, the Presidency conclusions from the European Council contain all the usual clichés about social dimensions and SMEs and totally fail to address the main problems of European economies, which are that Europe is over-taxed and over-regulated and therefore unable to face the challenges of global competitiveness. May I say that the report was also remarkable for what it omitted. We hear a lot about the Lisbon Process, but very little indeed about the Lisbon Treaty, which, as we all know, is in effect the failed Constitution. Despite all the promises that were made to European citizens, we have decided to ratify this Treaty in most Member States without referendums. We have made that decision because we know that the people would withhold their consent. In my region a recent postal ballot showed that nearly 90% of the people opposed the Treaty. This is a defiance of democracy. Later this afternoon we shall be debating the issue of Tibet but, before we criticise too seriously, perhaps we should look very carefully at our own record of democratic accountability. In the mean time, we should indeed be looking at the Tibet issue and condemning China for its outrageous behaviour and suppression of rights. I think the time has come when we should seriously consider whether free nations can attend the celebrations in Beijing for the Olympics later this year. Giles Chichester Mr President, in welcoming the conclusions of the Council, I wish to focus my remarks on the section entitled 'Climate change and energy'.
{'language': 'en'}