Who was Hely Pinheiro

Dibattiti
L-Erbgħa, 10 t'Ottubru 2007 - BrussellEdizzjoni riveduta

16.Tħejjija għal-Laqgħa Għolja informali bejn il-Kapijiet ta 'Stat u ta' Gvern (Lisbona, 18/19 ta 'Ottubru 2007)

The president. The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the preparations for the Informal Summit of Heads of State or Government in Lisbon on 18-19. October 2007.

Manuel Lobo Antunes, Presidente em exercício do Conselho. Senhor Presidente, Senhores Deputados, o Senhor Presidente compreenderá que antes de me referir concretamente ao ponto da agenda que hoje nos traz aqui, e me traz aqui, lhe transmita, em nome do Governo português e também da Presidência portuguesa do Conselho, os nossos agradeciment pela referência tão calorosa e tão amiga, e eu julgo também tão justa, que fez a propósito do desaparecimento tão inesperado e tão doloroso do meu compatriota e deputado a este Parlamento, Dr. Fausto Correia.

Os portugueses ficaram abalados com esta notícia porque foi a notícia do desaparecimento de alguém que era, efectivamente, um homem bom e que foi, para todos nós, um exemplo de luta pela dignidade humana e pelos valores em que acreditamos: os Direito e os valores do respeito pelos direitos humanos.

A sua perda imensa é um facto, temos apenas que tentar, se formos capazes, de lhe seguir o exemplo e agradeço sinceramente a homenagem que este Parlamento lhe prestou, como o Governo português também obviamente lhe presta.

(Aplausos)

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, last year I spoke to Parliament about what the Commission saw as the motor of progress in today's European Union and we outlined the so-called 'twin-track' approach - an activist policy agenda and an ambitious approach to the treaty reform were goals that supported each other. There was a lot of consensus in that debate, and I think there were three reasons for that.

First of all, it reflects a degree of maturity in the European Union, because Europe today touches on so many areas of people’s lives, and this has created expectations. Retreating into a lowest-common-denominator Europe would be a big mistake. Second, I think that the challenge of communicating Europe with and to our citizens demanded a fresh approach, with a more profound awareness of how Europe relates to their social needs, their economic aspirations and their underlying values. Finally, this new approach was based not just on political instinct: it was grounded in the work launched by the Commission in its Plan ‘D’ for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate, in which so many Members of this Parliament took such an active part.

The informal European Council next week will be the twin-track approach in action. On the one hand, we should see the heads of state and government concluding the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) and agreeing a new Reform Treaty. On the other, the Presidency has signaled its intention to deepen the debate on how Europe responds to globalization.

So, to start with the Reform Treaty: we now have a text in front of us and this is a major achievement. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Portuguese Presidency, as we have to the German presidency, for the way they have moved the process forward calmly and steadily, showing great commitment.

Like my colleague from the Presidency, I also want to pay tribute to Parliament for its constructive role in this last phase. We have worked well together, and, thanks to Mr Brok, Mr Barón Crespo and Mr Duff, we have a better Treaty, in terms of its provisions on rights and citizenship. We will also be giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights full status through a formal proclamation.

Remember how many said that an EU of 27 would never be able to agree a treaty text again. We are on the verge of proving them wrong yet again. The determination of all of us to reach agreement also points to a Europe with plenty of ideas for the future. If we agree a deal next week, the agreement to stick closely to the mandate will have been vindicated. We now have to carry this past the final hurdles. I am sure that the heads of state and government will be fully aware that an atmosphere of recrimination and dispute at Lisbon would do nothing to help the process of ratification.

Of course, we would have liked to avoid opt-outs, but, if that was the price of making progress with an ambitious Reform Treaty, we have to accept it. It is the nature of compromise and negotiation.

I would also like to thank Parliament for having responded rapidly and efficiently to the invitation of the European Council to come up with proposals for its future composition. This is a difficult and sensitive issue for all of you, as it is for Member States, and I would emphasize the need for agreement by both Parliament and the Council.

One last word on the Treaty: political agreement by the European Council is an important step, but, as we all know, it is not the end of the story. I hope we will be able to work together during the ratification process, seeing it as an opportunity to communicate, to explain and to listen about the European Union. Where possible, we should coordinate, as the Commission proposed last week in a new paper entitled Communicating Europe in Partnership ’.

We also need a treaty that is as accessible and understandable as possible, with a consolidated text that should be made available as soon as possible after the conclusion of the IGC. During this ratification process, leading up to the European Parliament elections in 2009, the delivery of our policy agenda for Europeans will be equally important in setting the mood, and next week, thanks to the Presidency, we will have a debate on Europe and globalization . This is very timely: every year it becomes more and more clear that globalization is central to the concerns of this generation of Europeans. It touches every citizen in one way or another: the goods and services we buy, the television we watch, the energy we use and the work we do. The European Union has been successfully developing a policy which recognizes the fundamental link between economic success and social security. But globalization is not static, as this summer’s turbulence in the financial markets showed all too clearly. We need to adapt constantly to changing circumstances.

Last week, as Mr Lobo Antunes has mentioned, the Commission adopted a paper for this debate that will also set the scene for proposals later this year on reviewing the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs. It argues that Europe must shape up for globalization in order to deal successfully with the pressure it puts on our economies, our institutions and our citizens, but also to seize the opportunities for greater prosperity, for lifting people out of poverty, for new markets for our products, for closer cooperation and for more sharing of values. The paper also states very clearly that globalization is not some irresistible external force of nature, with the EU as a passive bystander. We can shape globalization and shape it, to some extent, in our own image. That is our task: to be confident enough about our values, our vision and the tools at our disposal to ensure that Europe succeeds in the age of globalization.

It also rejects protectionism. Yes to protecting our citizens, but no to protectionism that can only impoverish them. It also serves notice on our partners: we will not be a soft touch; we will defend the European interest. That means a level playing field; it means ensuring that openness is a two-way street; it means making clear that we will not water down our high standards of health, safety, environmental and consumer protection.

The paper is equally uncompromising when it comes to our values. We can prosper in the age of globalization, but we will want to do it our own way. Our growth will have to be sustainable. We have set ambitious targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and using renewable energy sources, and we will meet them. The meeting will provide an important opportunity to restate Europe’s leadership role in the run-up to Bali.

We will use our social models to spread the benefits of globalization throughout our society. They are among our biggest assets. They will help our citizens to adapt and equip them for dealing successfully with rapid change. The tripartite social summit just before the informal European Council will provide an excellent opportunity to set the scene.

It is clear that, today, the European Union offers a route for Europeans to make the most of globalization, to provide a continental context that individual countries cannot match. To deliver this European interest, we have a ready-made tool in the shape of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs. Our economic analysis shows that the Lisbon Strategy is beginning to deliver. The paper points to a number of policy areas that deserve even greater attention during the next three-year cycle up to 2010: education and flexicurity, including more attention to active inclusion policies and adequate social protection; a fifth freedom for ideas and researchers; eco-innovation; a small business act for Europe to help millions of small companies across the EU to grow and create more jobs. None of this is easy, but it is achievable. I know that this Parliament will remain intimately involved in following the progress of the Lisbon Strategy at both EU and national level. Your views on the points sketched out here will be an essential input for the package, which we will adopt in December.

The informal European Council is an important rendezvous at an important time. Let us use the opportunity to show Europeans that the European Union is looking ahead, shaping its policies to meet tomorrow’s challenges and equipping itself with the right tools.

(Applause)

Elmar Brok (PPE-DE), rapporteur. - Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! We have an example of good cooperation between two Council Presidencies: the German Council Presidency, which has prepared a mandate that has now turned out to be extraordinarily stable, far-reaching and far-reaching when implemented by the Portuguese Council Presidency. The fact that, after the work of the legal experts, we are now faced with the situation that the issues are manageable and can be narrowed down, and that this may be even more successful within the framework of the Foreign Ministers next Monday, shows that there is a really good chance that Thursday next week will Reform treaty is wrapped up.

The three representatives have decided to support this mandate. Not because this mandate will make our dreams come true, but because, under the prevailing circumstances, this mandate is the best that can be achieved in order to achieve more democracy and greater capacity to act. On the ability of an enlarged Union to act, and more ability to act in the context of the new challenges that we have in this world, from energy security to terrorism, foreign and security policy as a whole, globalization, organized crime to climate change and much more.

We have succeeded in doing this because we have better decision-making options in the Council, we have new responsibilities in the area of ​​energy security and we have the dissolution of the third pillar in the area of ​​legal and domestic policy, which my colleague will talk about later, and here The European Parliament - and this is the second win - on these issues will have co-decision-making rights, so that with this treaty in future the European Parliament will have equal co-decision-making rights in 95 percent of the legislative cases, also in the area of ​​agricultural policy and the entire budget. It is often forgotten that all of these are in this package. This means that the democratic loophole that the European Union had so far will be decisively closed. This is a major step forward!

Other countries that are experiencing difficulties have been given the opportunity within the framework of this mandate and in the negotiations to compensate for this through an opt-out with clear deadlines, which does not hinder the overall development, but its possibilities arising from common law and such derive further, be preserved. This guarantees its red lines, which should make the ratification process possible even without a referendum, if I have correctly understood the corresponding commitments or pronouncements in the context of the negotiations.

By making the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, this Union becomes a community of values, even with the opt-out that someone may have. But this does not apply to European decisions, because European legislation is made as a whole. There is only a question of application in individual Member States when it comes to the rights of judges and citizens, and we must see that we are entering a new dimension here too, through the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the creation of legal personality.

The European Union still has a few points to consider here. Point 1: Article 24 of the mandate - data protection in external relations - must, in my opinion, be redrafted or it must be clarified by means of a declaration that it does not concern general data protection issues - such as PNR. This has yet to be clarified. Data protection - the data of the citizens may not be passed on without judicial control and parliamentary participation. I think that is an essential question.

(Applause)

The second point concerns transitional arrangements. I would also like to ask for support from the Council and the Commission, and this is in the Commission's interest. If the treaty comes into force on January 1, 2009, it cannot be the case that the Foreign Minister, whom we are no longer allowed to call that, i.e. the High Representative, will be appointed by the Council in a “light” procedure. We want all of this to be resolved in one package in 2009, while fully respecting the rights of the European Parliament. The High Representative is also Vice-President of the Commission and must submit to everything here. This is also where the Commission is interested: a future Commission President must have a say in the selection of the High Representative, who is also Vice-President. That is why the High Representative cannot take office until the European Parliament has elected the President of the Commission. This order must be maintained if democratic rights are not undermined here and imbalances in powers are to arise. We still have to do some fine-tuning in the next few days.

(Applause)

The president. Thank you very much, Elmar Brok, I would have been surprised if you had needed nine minutes.

The next speaker to be the representative in the Intergovernmental Conference was Enrique Barón Crespo.

Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE), Ponente. - Señor Presidente del Parlamento, señor Presidente del Consejo, señora Vicepresidenta de la Comisión, Señorías: los representantes del Parlamento Europeo hablamos diversos idiomas, pertenecemos a Grupos distintos, pero estamos unidos en la misma voluntad, que es la de hacerón avanzar Europea consiguiendo el Tratado de Lisboa, unertrado en el que la codecisión legislativa, la personalidad única de la Unión, el avance en la comunitarización de la política de interior y justicia, también de la política exterior, la participación de los Parlamentos nacionales están ahí .

Queremos más democracia y más eficacia. Lamentamos que no haya más transparencia, pero eso pertenece al método de la Conferencia Intergubernamental. Tengo que decir que los juristas —particularmente los del Parlamento— han conseguido que interpretemos el jeroglífico en el que se ha convertido este ejercicio de una manera positiva.

Y me dirijo al señor Presidente del Consejo para confirmar ante el Parlamento algo que entiendo que es un compromiso muy claro, y es que la ciudadanía, que había sido muy injustamente relegada al tratado de funcionamiento, ha vuelto al Tratado de la Unión Europea con la redacción que tenía desde el Tratado de Maastricht. Para nosotros es fundamental, como representantes de los ciudadanos.

Tengo que reconocer que, en un gesto inusual de claridad política, el mismo Presidente del Consejo nos dijo que eso parecía imposible, pero se ha conseguido: primer logro importante.

Segundo: la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales, que es la seña de identidad de los ciudadanos europeos. Ya no es una declaración —la número 11—; no es tampoco un protocolo: es «la Carta», y la Carta la votaremos aquí, el mes próximo, solemnemente, con los Presidentes de las tres instituciones comunitarias, antes de empezar el proceso de ratificación. Y la Carta será jurídicamente vinculante, y esto lo digo porque creo que es importante que quede en acta en el día de hoy, porque para el Parlamento Europeo entiendo que éstas son condiciones absolutamente esenciales, condiciones sine qua non para apoyar este Tratado.

Además, hay otros elementos en los que creemos que se puede progresar. Mi colega Elmar Brok has mencionado el tema de la protección de datos, tema sensible si los hay.

Hay algunos otros que son muy importantes para nosotros.Uno de ellos es el diálogo entre los interlocutores sociales —injustamente relegado al tartado de funcionamiento— y otro tema importante en el que creemos que estamos ayudando con nuestro apoyo a resolver problemas de confianza es dar seguridad a través de una la de declaración, com , que existe y está ya, pero que no debe ir más allá. No creemos que en un Tratado de una Unión en el que se funciona por mayoría, y mayoría cualificada, tenga sentido introducir elementos de unanimidad que romperían absolutamente ese proceso. Yo mencioné en Viana do Castelo —lo recordará el Presidente— que la bomba atómica tiene sentido tenerla cuando no se utiliza. Si se utiliza, lo destruye todo. Y creo que esa es una advertencia importante.

Y, señor Presidente, hay un punto más importante para el Parlamento, y creo que me expreso en este momento en nombre de la mayoría del Parlamento, de la mayoría de los Estados miembros, y de una manera muy clara, aquellos que ratificaron el Tratado Constitucional, que hemos hecho el sacrificio de prescindir de él para lograr la unanimidad, y es que en esta ocasión es muy importante que trabajemos todos juntos con lealtad recíproca y con solidaridad para conseguir la ratificación. De no ser así, verdaderamente nos habenraríamos en circunstancias muy difíciles. Creo que tenemos todos que ser leales al compromiso que hemos contraído. Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

Andrew Duff (ALDE), rapporteur. - Mr President, like my colleagues, I agree that a political agreement is probable at the IGC in Lisbon. But the thing that concerns us still, of course, is the quality of the agreement. I have to express concern, at the present stage of the IGC, that we are seeing the emergence of a self-service Europe propelled principally by the British demands for the opt-outs in the field of justice and interior affairs and fundamental rights.

Clearly there has to be a British domestic debate about why British citizens ought to be excluded from the benefits of integration inside all these important fields, but the British should also explain themselves more fully to the IGC. What is it, precisely, that they are seeking to achieve with all these opt-outs? Can we be truly satisfied that the arrangements that are negotiated for the management of this pick-and-choose approach will stand up in practice and ensure that common policies in the field of freedom, security and justice will still enjoy proper commonality and the full resources and instruments to carry them out? Surely the UK and Polish opt-out on the charter risks subverting the decision to make it binding for everyone else. I hope that the IGC can be able to examine the question with sufficient care.

Would the Presidency press the British to support the proposal from the Parliament for an escape clause from their unfortunate protocol on the Charter? The same applies to Ioannina: the Presidency and the Commission should assure us this afternoon that they will not concede to the unreasonable demands to upgrade the Ioannina Clause from secondary to primary law. Ioannina is the historical descendant of the Luxembourg Compromise; the Luxembourg Compromise was a gentleman’s agreement and so it should remain when included alongside the Treaty as a decision of the Council.

Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE-DE. - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Madame la Vice-présidente de la Commission, chers collègues, au nom du groupe PPE-DE, je tiens à remercier Mme Wallström et M. Lobo Antunes pour leurs interventions.

The période de réflexion et de débat afin de décider de la future governance de notre Union à 27 touche à sa fin. Avons-nous gagné en maturité? Sommes-nous prêts à passer des débats à l'action? En juin dernier, Mme Merkel a su conjuguer courage, responsabilité et volonté politique. Loin de fuir les sujets qui fâchent, nous avons réussi à réduire les divergences. La voie permettant enfin à l'Union européenne de se doter des outils nécessaires à un fonctionnement plus efficace a été ouverte.

Trois mois se sont écoulés et la Présidence portugaise a su maintenir le cap. Si la feuille de route fixée en juin dernier est respectée jusqu'à son terme, jusqu'au Conseil européen de Lisbonne, la Présidence portugaise pourra dégager un accord sur les reformes de nos traités. Je salue ici la détermination de la Présidence portugaise durant les travaux de la Conference intergouvernementale. Pour le Parlement européen, et de l'avis de nos collègues Brok, Barón Crespo et Duff, que je tiens à remercier très chaleureusement, le bilan de la CIG est conforme aux attentes et le mandat fixé par les chefs d'État et de gouvernement a, dans l'ensemble, été respecté.

Chers collègues, si nous sommes prêts à nous contenter d'un compromis equilibré, n'oublions pas que c'est par défaut. Pour ma part, je crois plus utile d'insister sur les raisons de notre soutien au projet de traité. En premier lieu, nous avons la conviction que seule une Europe unie, forte et efficace, peut peser sur les affaires du monde qui va si vite, qui change, qui devient complexe et instable. Si nous soutenons le projet de traité, c'est aussi parce qu'une Europe efficace à 27 ne peut pas bâtir sur les règles du traité de Nice. De plus, face au doute exprimé par les citoyens européens, nous avons réclamé plus de democratie et de transparence.

Nous nous prononçons pour une répartition claire des compétences, pour une participation accrue de nos concitoyens au processus de construction de notre Union et pour un rôle actif et une contribution forte des parlements nationaux. La réforme des traités est la bonne réponse aux attentes des citoyens. Le traité révisé est un moyen, pas une fin en soi. Sa forms, son nom importent peu. Seuls comptent sa substance et les progrès qu'il consacre pour les citoyens européens.

Nous, membres du groupe PPE-DE, ne voulons pas d'un super État européen. De super, nous ne voulons que l'efficacité, la democratie, la transparence et le respect de la subsidiarité. Nous réclamons des institutions européennes efficaces, capables de prendre des décisions, et, si les replis nationaux sont trop souvent une réalité, il nous appartient de limiter leurs effets pervers pour éviter la paralysie de l'Europe. Toute tentative visant à bloquer le processus de décision de notre Union est à bannir. Les citoyens attendent de l'Europe qu'elle agisse là où elle est utile, dans le climat, l'énergie, l'immigration, l'innovation, le terrorisme. J'espère et je souhaite que ce traité nous permette de le faire et nous le soutiendrons.

Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! I warmly thank the representatives of Parliament in the Intergovernmental Conference. Our colleagues Enrique Barón Crespo, Elmar Brok and Andrew Duff represented the interests of the European Parliament in an excellent manner. On behalf of our group, I would like to express my sincere thanks to you for this.

(Applause)

We were right to hear from Mr Daul that it is now up to the Portuguese Presidency to bring to a conclusion what was necessary after the failed attempt at a European constitution, namely to present a revised and revised treaty, from among 27 countries to unite the essential elements of the need for reform in the EU, to secure the work of unification legally and politically in an intergovernmental conference that is now coming to an end, to round things off at the summit in Lisbon and then to give them the really crucial phase, namely ratification this revised treaty in 27 member states under the specific legal and constitutional conditions of each country.

So I want to emphasize that we can be optimistic about Lisbon. If we compare what was achieved under the German Council Presidency at the summit as a mandate for the Intergovernmental Conference here in Brussels and what was worked out in the Intergovernmental Conference, we can also, following the reports of our representatives, assume that almost - with a few exceptions - is congruent. As the Social Democratic Group, we say: It has to be! Changes that go back beyond the mandate that was agreed here in Brussels cannot and will not be accepted as socialists - that should be said clearly here. But we assume that we have a draft on the table that corresponds to what was agreed here in June and for which we all praised Ms. Merkel.

If we give that to Lisbon on the trip, then it will be interesting. The question then arises as to whether this treaty will be ratified in 27 Member States, and then it depends on the Members of this House, then we have to fight. Then we have to fight in all states to ensure that the work of European unification is accepted. Because I dare the thesis that a renewed failure of this revised treaty - just as the constitution failed - will be the end of the European Union in its present form. That is why everyone who does not want to go the way of the anti-Europeans who sit here in this House, everyone who wants to go the way of promoting Europe and its deepening, is called to fight for this treaty. I hope, Mr Daul, that all the members of your group will do the same. I have my slight doubts about that.

I will also tell you what we must keep in mind in this House if the project fails. What happens if the European Union fails to make another attempt to get the revised treaty wrapped up? What is in store for the European Union? Europeans believe that we are one big continent: 500 million people in 27 Member States, one big internal market. We make up 8% of the world's population. India has 1.1 billion inhabitants, China 1.3 billion, these two countries together make up a third of the world's population. If we want to remain competitive in the long run, if we want to defend the social aspects that we have achieved in Europe, if we want to If we want to stabilize the economic basis, which is the prerequisite for social justice, then we must be able to survive in a worldwide concert. But we can only exist worldwide if this union is uniform - economically, socially and politically. For this she needs this reform treaty! If this EU breaks down into its individual parts, if we follow the nationalists who tell the peoples that we alone can do better than 27 countries together, then this continent is headed for bad times!

That is why I hope that what was agreed in Lisbon will survive ratification and that is why we will have to fight. Anyone who wants peace in Europe, who wants Europe as a peace factor in the world, who wants economic growth and more jobs and distributive justice in the Union, must strengthen this reform treaty, defend it and enforce it. Anyone who does not want that, who is betting on renationalization, should be told what François Mitterrand said in this House: Nationalism is the opposite of European unification, and in the long term nationalism always means war. But Europe is a concept that arose from the wounds of the war on this continent, and that is why European unification on the basis of a reformed treaty is the goal of all democrats and progressive forces on this continent.

Therefore: good luck to the Intergovernmental Conference and to the summit! But much more luck for ratification in 27 states.

(Applause)

Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, Prime Minister Sócrates must feel like England's Henry V before the battle of Agincourt: hostile governments preparing for a fight, intent on weakening, even perhaps vetoing, treaty reform. President-in-Office, your Prime Minister must hold firm to Europe's red lines and he must deliver next week a treaty able to underpin a strong, responsive and effective Union. So it is ‘Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more’, for what should be the final battle in this constitutional war.

This Parliament will be your foot soldiers. We know that failure to agree on treaty reform would be a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. Why? Because the status quo has not worked, does not work and never can work. What Council unanimity means in practice is that essential legislation is either shelved or lowered to the level of the common denominator. In an increasingly cut-throat, globalizing world, where challenges like climate change, migration and terrorism demand radical responses, the lowest common denominator is just not good enough.

It may not be the Constitution but, for all its legalese, the Reform Treaty is a document which can quietly revolutionize Europe. It develops democracy, putting codecision and qualified majority voting at the heart of decision-making. It favors subsidiarity, with a clearer division of competences, reinforcing the role of national parliaments and the Union's single legal personality, and it helps transparency, extending the ordinary legislative procedure to cover freedom, security and justice - an area where laws which breach the spirit of a rights-respecting Union have been made behind closed doors for too long.

The draft text of your amending Treaty is not without its faults: the loss of Europe’s symbols is a blow to federalists, as is the fudge on voting systems wrought by the Poles. But we can live with them, so long as the Ioannina Compromise is not anchored in the Treaty for all time.

One thing we cannot live without, however, is a definition of European citizenship in Article 8 of the Treaty of European Union, because citizenship is a symbol which, unlike a flag or an anthem, has a real life, real implications for over 450 million people.

Similarly, calling our Foreign Minister the ‘High Representative’ is no grave cause for concern, but a High Representative who is merely a puppet of the Council certainly would be. Parliament and the Commission must unite to ensure that the joint character of the external action service is respected in full, and that the Court of Justice oversees the use of personal data within the common foreign and security policy.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we cannot have two classes of citizen. That goes entirely against the spirit of European integration and we must do our damnedest to ensure that British and Polish opt-outs are not preserved in perpetuity by demanding a clause allowing revocation without reconvening the IGC.

It is not only opt-outs, we must guard against: it is also ‘opt-ins’. If not properly formulated, they could allow governments first to water down, and then to wash their hands of, essential community laws in justice and home affairs after five years of dialogue and debate. If certain countries cannot accept reasonable compromise, our message should be this: they should start thinking about an amicable divorce from the Union and cease holding it hostage to their own vested interests, for the interests of Europe must take precedence over these.

(Applause)

So I urge the Council, the Commission and our own representatives, in Shakespeare’s words: ‘Stiffen your sinews ..., Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit to his full height’ in defense of our common interest.

(Applause)

Konrad Szymański, w imieniu grupy UEN. - Panie Przewodniczący! Stoimy dziś przed ostatnim odcinkiem prac nad reformą traktatową. Jeśli szczyt w Lizbonie ma się zakończyć sukcesem, potrzebujemy politycznej wyobraźni. Szczególnie ci, którzy uznają reformę traktatową za priorytet, powinni dziś zadać sobie pytanie: czy warto usztywniać stanowisko wobec Polski i Wielkiej Brytanii, czy warto stawiać znaki wapnikiemania nocadjacnikiemania

Karta Praw Podstawowych, jeśli wierzyć jej zwolennikom, ma tylko umocnić dotychczasowe, obowiązujące zapisy. A może rację mają jednak ci, którzy wskazują na nieobliczalne w istocie skutki stosowania jej zapisów przez ETS. Yes mam takie obawy i dlatego całkowicie rozumiem zastrzeżenia wyrażone przez Wielką Brytanię i Polskę.

Istotnym elementem kompensacji strat, jakie Polska zdecydowała się ponieść wraz z odejściem od systemu nicejskiego, jest mechanizm z Joaniny oraz stałe miejsce rzecznika z Polski w ETS. Podważanie tych ustaleń dziś stawia przed nami pytania o szczerość intencji. Polska, podobnie jak każdy inny kraj, ma prawo oczekiwać lepszych instrumentów kontroli procesu legislacji w Unii. Brak odpowiedniej legitymizacji przyniesie bowiem porażkę projektu europejskiego w przyszłości. Brak kontroli nad procesem legislacji to nie wymysł eurosceptyków ani stronników wojny, jak to chce widzieć jak zwykle lekko podenerwowany Martin Schulz. Jest to zmartwienie szczerych Europejczyków. To były prezes Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w Karlsruhe oraz były prezydent Niemiec Roman Herzog pytał niedawno o to, czy Niemcy są jeszcze demokracją parlamentarną biorąc pod uwagę fakt, jak wielka liczba przepiemestów pozała przepiemestów

Monica Frassoni, a name del gruppo Verts / ALE.- Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, a pochi giorni dalla conclusione della Conferenza intergovernativa ci prepariamo alla solita notte, alla solita giornata di mercanteggiamento, come è semper successo, che si salderà, come semper, con un compromesso al ribasso.

La lettura dei vari testi, quelli che siamo riusciti ad ottenere attraverso canali pseudosegreti, perché qua pubblicamente si fa molto poco, ci dimostrano che questi testi sono una lettura molto complicata e sicuramente user-unfriendly. Ma i negotiatori, lo sappiamo benissimo, non hanno nessun interest ad essere user-friendly, a spiegare e a coinvolgere i loro cittadini in questo che sarebbe dovuto essere un momento importante della loro vita democratica.

Al contrario, già a partire dal mandato noi abbiamo denunciato il fatto che l'argomento secondo il quale il 90% del testo del trattato costituzionale è ripreso dal trattato di riforma non può nasci la realtà di un testo oscondere, pieno di postille e deroghe indeboliscono l'Unione europea, in particolare in materia di politica estera e di chiarezza del diritto.

Questo è stato un negoziato totalmente in mano ai governi, fatto alle spalle dei cittadini e approfittando del fatto che le infinite disquisizioni linguistiche e burocratiche hanno avuto ragione di quella passione e di quella partecipazione male democratica, che nel bene car o nel Convenzione e anche quella dei referendum.

Tre dei nostri membri hanno partecipato ai lavori della Conferenza intergovernativa e hanno seguito quelli dei giuristi, però è inutile negare il fatto che non sono riusciti a migliorare in modo sensibile la trasparenza del processo e, se sono forse hreciti then potuto portare alcun particolare miglioramento perché non ne avevano lo spazio.

Quindi, on. Schulz, on. Brok, on. Baron e on. Duff, io francamente non vedo il perché? Noi dobbiamo essere considerati, dobbiamo considerarci corresponsabili di questo testo e perché, pur ovviamente essendo d'accordo che dobbiamo cercare - dipende adesso da cosa succederà nell'accordo finale - di fare in modo che gli Stati membri lo ratifichino per questéo testo testo testo ? Perché, come dice l'on. Schulz dobbiamo dire, anche qui fra di noi, che se questo testo non passa sarà la tragedia, perché questo testo è fantastico, perché questo testo qui…. Questo testo è orribile! Qualsiasi lettore che lo vede si rende chiaramente conto che non è questo quello che i cittadini volevano.

Detto questo, è evident che è meglio che niente! Detto questo, è evidente che è meglio - no Martin, rimettiti il ​​coso perché io non sto dicendo che lo voglio rifiutare - dico solamente che dobbiamo essere responsabili e credibili rispetto ai cittadini e che anche se questo è un compromesso loo-solarmente sufficient sosterremo! Ma non possiamo mentire e non possiamo dire che questo è il massimo a cui potevamo arrivare, perché i governi ci hanno scippato questo processo costituzionale e lo hanno reso quello che è oggi e poteva essere sicuramente molto meglio di quello che è.

Francis Wurtz, au nom du groupe GUE / NGL. - Monsieur le Président, je ne reviendrai pas sur l'appréciation global que notre groupe porte sur le nouveau projet de traité. Nous y sommes opposés, non par nationalisme, mon cher Martin, nationalisme que je honnis autant que toi, mais parce qu'aucune des critiques de fond qui ont marqué les débats sur l'ex-projet de traité constitutionnel - et je ne parle pas des symboles de l'Union, qui n'étaient pas notreproblemème, mais des orientations politiques de l'Union - n'a été prize en considération. J'ai l'impression que cette désinvolture se paiera tôt ou tard.

Mais, dans l'immédiat, je vais m'arrêter sur le cas d'un article précis du nouveau projet, dont il a déjà été question, l'article 24 du traité sur l'Union, dont la mise en cause semble en revanche faire largement consensus parmi nous, et c'est tant mieux. Il s'agit en effet d'une question sensible: la protection des citoyens à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel. Or, la procédure législative qui s'appliquerait ne serait pas la même selon que ces données seraient traitées au sein de l'Union ou transmises à un État tiers. Dans le premier cas, le Parlement serait pleinement compétent, dans le second, totalement dessaisi.

Cela constitue une monstruosité juridique et un grave déni de democratie. En fait, cela renvoie directement au précédent de l'affaire PNR, où le Conseil a accepté de transmettre aux autorités américaines des données confidentielles sur les passagers à destination des Etats-Unis, et ce malgré l'opposition absolue du Parlement européen. Le Conseil voudrait donc pérenniser cette situation et il s'en donne les moyens. Ce n'est pas acceptable et le Parlement devrait le signifier en toute clarté au Conseil européen.

J'ajouterai simplement ceci: ce contentieux révèle indirectement plusieurs faits sur lesquels mon groupe n'a cessé d'attirer l'attention. D'abord, le peu d'impact effectif de la charte des droits fondamentaux. Celle-ci consacre en effet explicitement son article 8 à la protection des données à caractère personnel, laquelle protection est pourtant allègrement violée et est appelée à l'être également dans l'avenir. Ensuite, le caractère quasiment indéchiffrable de certains passages clés des traités, dont seule une lecture très avertie permet de déceler de telles chausse-trapes. Enfin, l'opacité voulue des travaux de la CIG, aux antipodes d'une élaboration publique et transparente d'un texte censé déterminer la vie et l'avenir d'une Union de 27 pays et d'un demi-milliard de citoyennes et de citoyens.

Tout cela nous conforte dans notre double exigence démocratique, celle d'un grand débat pluraliste dans chaque pays sur les enjeux des traités et celle d'une ratification par voie de référendum.

Jens-Peter Bonde, for IND / DEM groups. - Mr. formand! Fredag ​​kl. 17.00 offentliggjorde EU forslaget til den nye traktat. Dermed fik man sikkerhed for, at medierne ikke ville skrive om say i weekends. The press work is dygtigt, når formålet he at luske en traktat owns, before he the dog rains ows.

Under the Strasbourg-samling lovede formands held on formand conferences, at all groups are able to go to all documents from regeringskonferencen. Vi har stadig ikke fået dem. Tre grupper har privilegeret adgang til regeringskonferencen, fem grupper holdes udenfor. Det er discriminerende og i strid med lighedsgrundsætningen. Igen rainy flow.

Den nye traktat indeholder 105 nye kompetencer til EU - præcist som forfatningen. The har 62 områder, hvor vetoret and folkestyre beskæres, forfatningen har 61. Det nye er, at 255 sider changes nu placeres in 2 800 sider traktater, så teksten gøres ulæselig for all other end needs. Igen: hvor raining waterfalls. EU's next forfatning vil come on 3,000 sider mod the forkastede forfatnings 560 sider. Det var, hvad der kom ud af Sarkozys såkaldte minitraktat. Tænk at gå til valg på en lille Praxis mini-tractat and så serve the forkastede forfatning igen, nu uden folkeafstemning. Igen rainy flow.

The ikke vedtages én eneste lov med hjemmel i forfatningen, which ikke også kan vedtages med hjemmel i the next tract. De to tekster he identiske på juridiske forpligtelser, forskellen he, at one har ændret navnet and aflyst folkeafstemningen. Igen rainy flow.

Tøsedrenge! Kom dog strangers med jeres planner and forelæg dem for vælgerne. Skriv under på ønsket om folkeafstemning på www.x09.EU.

Frank Vanhecke, named de ITS-Fractie. - Voorzitter, afgezien van de bedenkingen van de voorgaande spreker over een soort nieuw verdrag voor een Europese grondwet, the men ons op volstrekt ondemocratische wijze door de strot aan het duwen is, heeft het Europese voorzitterschap zich blijkbaort ook tot eendo een doorbraak te realize in het dossier van een gemeenschappelijk Europees immigratiebeleid. Het minste wat men daarover kan zeggen, is dat een dergelijk beleid op Europees niveau, beslist in de ver-van-mijn-bed-cenakels met bijzonder duistere besluitvorming van Commissie en Raad, zoals wij the helaas nu reeds know, people ondemocratisch zou zijn .

Het immigratieprobleem meets our burgers persoonlijk en in hun privé-leefomgeving en de besluitvorming daarover publish naar een Europees level waarop eigenlijk nobody gives up, complain ik bovendien niet grandson as ondemocratisch, maarli as ronduit gotta.

Het Portugese voorstel om de illegal immigratie zoals dat heet "te sturen" via legal immigratie, is te zot om los te lopen. Illegal immigration must be aangepakt door een lik-op-stuk-beleid, door een kordaat opsporings- en uitwijzingsbeleid, door sluitende control aan de buitengrenzen én door Europese internerings- en opvangcentra in de landen, of tenminste het continent van herkomst.

What concerns de zogenaamde absolute noodzaak van legal immigratie, wil ik er toch op wijzen dat we nu reeds in Europe zo'n 20 tot 25 miljoen werklozen, waaronder miljoenen werkloze immigrants met all followers van dien. Een nieuwe legal immigratiegolf met everything wat daarbij komt aan zogenaamde gezinsherenigingen zal de bijzonder dramatic integratie en assimilation problems alleen nog maar exponentieel doen toenemen.

In india het werkelijk enkel om hooggeschoolden zou gaan - wat ik dus betwist - then we organize a brain drain uit de poor land the zonder sea is shameful. Of is het de bedoeling - dat moet de Raad dan maar zeggen - om landen arm en onderontwikkeld te houden?

Maciej Marian Giertych (NI). - Panie Przewodniczący! O czym my dzisiaj dyskutujemy? O konstytucji dla Europy. Dyskutujemy nad documents pod inną nazwą, z innymi sformułowaniami, ale z tą samą zawartością merytoryczną co odrzucona już konstytucja. Chodzi o document rzekomo niższej rangi by tylko nie poddawać go pod referenda. Oto elity polityczne Unii, wśród nich członkowie tej izby, Komisja Europejska i rządy państw członkowskich, próbują oszukać swoje własne elektoraty, swoje narody.

Mamy udzielić poparcia dla traktatu reformującego, który w rzeczywistości jest euro-konstytucją, przemianowaną euro-konstytucją, którą wyborcy Francji i Holandii jużmo odrzucili w referendach, a szerego innych kraikjów never ratiefikjów.

Przypomnijmy słowa Angeli Merkel, cytuję użyć innej terminologii bez zmieniania istoty prawnej, np. w sprawie nazwy traktatu, określeń dla aktów prawnych Unii, czy dla Ministra Spraw Zagranicznych Unii koniec cytatu.

Właśnie to zrobiono i wzywa się nas do zaakceptowania tego ostwa. Never pozwólmy oszukiwać siebie i naszych wyborców.

João de Deus Pinheiro (PPE-DE). - Ao intervir hoje gostaria de, em meu nome pessoal e do grupo que represento neste Parlamento, expressar o nosso profundíssimo pesar pelo falecimento de Fausto Correia. Era um homem de convicções, mas um homem de afectos, um homem muito bom e solidário. Sentimos muito a falta dele.

Dizer, em seguida, que a Presidência portuguesa tem dado mostras de uma determinação que importa sublinhar em nicht deixar alterar os objectivos do Tratado, tal como foram acordados pelos Chefes de Estado e de Governo. Temos a certeza que assim vai continuar e que teremos um novo Tratado antes do dia 20 de Outubro. Por isso not direi corn.

Quanto à Estratégia de Lisboa, devo felicitar a Presidência ea Comissão por finalmente terem percebido aquilo que vimos dizendo há muito tempo: que, a menos que se dê à Comissão mais competências e responsabilidade na Estratégia em Lisboa do que aquilo 2000, a Estratégia de Lisboa not dará frutos. Envolver mais a Comissão, fazer da Comissão o pivot da Estratégia de Lisboa é uma boa direcção e temos esperança de que esta nova orientação possa vir a dar frutos.

Finalmente, dizer que envolver o tema da globalização na discussão da próxima cimeira informal é um bom sinal, porque de globalização se trata o mundo em que hoje vivemos e nicht podemos imaginar que a Cimeira com África ou com a Rússia - à ma deseiorjamos as felicidades - ou que a discussão dos câmbios do iene chinês ou do dólar americano not fazem parte deste fenómeno da globalização.

Como importa dizer, e a Comissão disse-o, que regras comuns no comércio internacional e abertura são importantes, como importante é a reciprocidade na ordem dos outros parceiros que connosco têm negócios e comércio. É um ponto importante e só por essa razão, ou se fosse essa a única razão já seria suficiente para enaltecer esta comunicação da Comissão.

Senhor Secretário de Estado Lobo Antunes, desejo-lhe as maiores felicidades para esta cimeira informal que é talvez das mais importantes que tivemos nos últimos anos na União Europeia.

Jo Leinen (PSE). - Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! I think we should praise the Portuguese Presidency for the way the negotiations have been conducted: very committed and very focused.

I think it's good that, with a few exceptions, you kept closely to the mandate from June and fought off the many extra requests, from the European Central Bank's request to have an article of its own, to Austria's request, the number of Limit students from other countries. None of this belongs in the new contract and I think you are on the home stretch. There is not much left for us to reach a consensus on the new treaty.

The opt-outs are painful. That gives the impression of disagreement and inconsistency. This fragments the EU and it also takes time to make decisions in the third pillar. This is really a downer, especially what Britain wanted. Andrew Duff had spoken of a self-service mentality. I hope that doesn’t catch on.

I believe that the main requests from London have all been fulfilled. I read with concern what was discussed in the House of Commons yesterday. Nothing works anymore. It would really be unacceptable to make additional demands now.

There will be talk of Poland's wish to anchor Ioannina somehow, but it cannot be that the ability to block will be increased. We want to increase the ability to act. That must remain an exception. That was a gentlemen’s agreement, and that shouldn't become the rule.

I would like the Commission and the Council to be able to proclaim the Charter here in Parliament's plenary hall with the three institutions. That would really be a good signal to the public out there. I would also like Mrs Wallström's wish to be reflected in the treaty, namely that citizens have a right to information. Two thirds of people feel uninformed. That would be a good addition to the contract.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Parliament will do everything to ensure that there is a Lisbon Treaty. I thank our three representatives and also the President, who will take care of this at the Lisbon Summit.

Sophia in ’t Veld (ALDE). - Mr President, I note with great regret that citizens ’rights are clearly not at the heart of the new treaty. Unfortunately, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been sacrificed to the Dutch Government’s fear of a referendum. The Charter of Fundamental Rights must be legally binding in full and for all because the Charter of Fundamental Rights is the application in practice of our shared values.

So what does an opt-out mean? Is it an opt-out from those shared values? Or, does it mean that Poland and the British Government simply pay lip-service to those values ​​but then deny their citizens the means to enforce their rights? What does an opt-out mean? Are we not creating a dangerous precedent here? Let us ask ourselves, will future countries, future Member States, have the same right to an opt-out? If Turkey, a country that I very much want to join the European Union, asks for an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, will it be granted the same right?

The other issue is that, between the Constitution and the Treaty, an additional, lower standard of data protection has somehow been created - a lower standard that applies to the area of ​​the common foreign and security policy. I predict that in the future the Member States will try to circumvent data protection rules by labeling, for example, counter-terrorism measures as common foreign and security policy instead of police and justice cooperation.

Finally, I would ask the Commission and the Member States to consider, as soon as the Treaty has been signed, acting in the spirit of the new Treaty and involving the European Parliament as a full co-legislator on matters of justice and home affairs, and rapidly closing the democratic gap that we have been living with for so long.

Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (UEN). - Panie Przewodniczący! Szefowie rządów i państw po raz kolejny zajmą się poprawianiem funkcjonowania Unii Europejskiej poprzez wyposażenie jej w nowy tract. Cieszy ta troska o narody Europy i i przyszłość.

Never może jednak stać się tak, że ustalenia nieformalnego szczytu zastąpią democracyzną drogę referendum w poszczególnych państwach w sprawie przyjęcia traktatu. Byłoby to oszutwo wobec społeczeństw państw członkowskich, które mają prawo samodzielnie decydować w tak ważnej kwestii.

Na starym traktacie konstytucyjnym dokonano bowiem operacji polegającej na, w gruncie rzeczy, niewielkich modyfikacjach tekstu. Pozwala to przedstawiać całość w zależności od bieżących potrzeb politycznych bądź jako dokument całkiem nowy, bądź jako dawny traktat zasadniczo niezmieniony. Dlatego chcę zapytać: jak Rada i Komisja definiują przedmiotowy document? Jest to nowy traktat, czy okrojona wersja starego i czy proces jego zatwierdzania rozpocznie się od początku we wszystkich państwach członkowskich?

Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts / ALE). - Mister President! Anyone who has watched how the governments tampered with the constitution in the last year, made it illegible and illegible and robbed it of the spirit and the European charisma, had to recognize that everything was done with what the citizens wanted - including with those who said no in France and the Netherlands - has nothing to do with it.

But anyone who has been able to spend the patience and the time to observe what is now happening in the preparation of the Intergovernmental Conference must see that the governments, with their lawyers and state chancelleries, pound the architecture of this constitution like termites. Grain by grain, element by element, is being dragged out of this constitution. I really wonder why no one is asking governments what they are doing. Is it really just your own power, is it really the loss of consciousness in the face of people's expectations or is it sheer nationalism that we are seeing resurrected in Europe?

The language! Today there was a delegation from Austria of members of the state parliament who asked me: How should I make anyone understand your yes to this constitution? I can't read it. I can no longer understand it myself. I no longer know what the texts, references, footnotes and footnotes mean.

I believe that at the end of this Intergovernmental Conference there is a threat of a Europe in which, for the first time in history, people are no longer able to recognize the political order in which they live. And then you will lose many supporters - including those who fought for this constitution for many years.

The basic rights! Vice-President of the Commission, you invoke the spirit of compromise. But why don't you invoke the nature of universal fundamental and human rights, which make it unthinkable that we should form a community of values ​​in which a few states declare: I am not a member of this community of values. How should we meet a Mr Putin and tell him: We are the great community of values ​​for universal human rights - except for a few of us. That is such a rift in Europe's credibility that one cannot conjure up a spirit of compromise! It's about a completely different spirit, it's about a great demon that rules here. I do not believe that what is happening here at the moment will meet with the approval of the citizens, which we no longer intend to ask anyway.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE / NGL). - Senhor Presidente, gostaria de iniciar a minha intervenção expressando, em meu nome pessoal e em nome do meu grupo, os nossos mais sinceros pesares pela morte do colega Fausto Correia.

Sobre a reforma dos Tratados, a Presidência do Conselho apenas reafirmou que anseia atingir mais uma etapa, not a última, no processo de recuperação do projecto inscrito na dita Constituição Europeia, ou seja, mais um passo no processo inicaçiado em June da Presidência alemã, que procura impor o conteúdo essencial de um Tratado rejeitado, apresentando-o de uma outra forma, procurando avançar à revelia e contra a vontade já expressa por povos, consubstanciando uma autêntica fraude política.

Com este Tratado pretende-se alicerçar as políticas neoliberais contra direitos e conquistas sociais, dando resposta aos interests das grandes transnacionais. Forçar o federalismo sob o domínio das grandes potências no quadro em que é atribuída personalidade jurídica à União e são retiradas competências dos Estados e monitorizar a União Europeia como pilar da NATO, de forma a promover a ingerência e o intervencionesismo das segundeso osêneso. Um Tratado que visa concretizar a criação de um bloco económico, político-militar, com ambições imperialistas. Um Tratado que nicht ultrapassará as profundas e insanáveis ​​contradições desta integração europeia e que, pelo contrário, agudizá-las-á.

Pela nossa parte continuaremos a denunciar os reais objectivos deste Tratado, a afirmar a necessidade da sua rejeição, ea exigir a realização de um amplo debate nacional e de uma consulta ao povo português em prol de uma Europa de cooperação entre Estados soberais di e iguetig de progresso e de paz.

Por fim, gostaria de saudar a realização da grande manifestação promovida pela CGTP-IN que se realizará em Lisboa, no próximo dia 18 de Outubro.

Patrick Louis (IND / DEM). - Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, que ce soit pour s'en réjouir ou s'en indigner, tout le monde en convient, le traité qui va être signé à Lisbonne est une opération de recyclage de la Constitution européenne, rejetée par deux référendums popular en 2005. Comme l'a relevé here un rapport de la Chambre des communes, tout y est: la supériorité du droit européen, même dérivé, sur le droit national, même constitutionnel, la personnalité juridique de l'Union, qui permettra à la Commission de se substiter aux États sur la scène internationale, le ministre des affaires étrangères avec un autre nom, ainsi que le plus important transfert de compétences de toute l'histoire de la construction européenne, au moins quarante nouvelles matières ainsi que l ' immense champ des droits fondamentaux.

Dans cette enceinte où l'on a en permanence le mot "démocratie" à la bouche, j'aimerais tenter d'interpeller la conscience de chacune et de chacun d'entre vous. Quel démocrate sincère peut estimer normal de faire entrer en vigueur un texte que le peuple a rejeté par référendum? Pourquoi priver les peuples de leur droit de s'exprimer sur le nouveau traité et sur tout nouvel élargissement? Source sorte de régime politique croyez-vous bâtir en subordonnant un peu plus nos démocraties à un système caractérisé par l'absence de séparation des pouvoirs, de responsabilité politique des gouvernements et de representation du peuple, faute de peuple unique europe?

Le fédéraliste Italy Tomaso Padoa-Schioppa a déjà répondu. Je le cite: "Entre les deux pôles du consensus populaire et du leadership de quelques gouvernements, l'Europe s'est faite en suivant une méthode que l'on pourrait définir du terme de despotisme éclairé". Il a raison! Et le non du peuple à leur despotisme éclairé a convaincu les fédéralistes d'avancer de nouveau masqués. Car la seule différence entre le traité constitutionnel rejeté et celui qui arrive, c'est que le premier, lui, ne mentait pas.

Jim Allister (NI). - Mr President, on past performance, I suspect that the Council will be an occasion when British red lines will become pink smudges, later to be rubbed out entirely by the federalizing European Court of Justice. Opt-out, opt-in, shake it all about, the British Government will claim victory, others will publicly indulge them, knowing that any apparent concessions are really without any substance. All this is to con the British public into believing that the Reform Treaty is actually materially different from the rejected Constitution, when patently it is not.

Now that Gordon Brown has bottled out of an election, the need for a British referendum is greater than ever. No election means Labor’s 2005 manifesto commitment of a referendum must stand. No referendum means no mandate for Mr Brown to proceed to ratification, and that is the bottom line upon which all democrats in the United Kingdom should unite.

Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). - Mr President, I want to thank the Council and Commission for their statements. The Lisbon informal summit is going to be a crucial event, having had the publication of the draft Reform Treaty, which heads of state and government will focus on when they meet there. But the IGC process has been rushed too much. Indeed, the British Government says it has only had two days to consider the draft mandate. The proposals are, of course, as has been said by other speakers, very much the same as those contained in the original constitutional text.

The British Prime Minister has a problem. It is called trust - trust in what he says. For the past few weeks, he has encouraged his ministers to talk up prospects of an election in the UK and then, when the political going got rough, he backed down. I think his European colleagues, fellow European leaders, should be very careful that whatever he says in Lisbon, he is likely to mean something completely different. British Conservatives, of course, will continue to demand a referendum on the Treaty. The vast majority of British people want one, including most of the government’s own supporters. If the Prime Minister continues to resist that pressure, despite a clear election manifesto pledge, then the British people will have further confirmation that he cannot be trusted. The leader of my party said that this could well be a blatant breach of trust - one of the greatest and most blatant breaches of trust in modern politics.

I do also wish that Europe would concentrate more on the paths of globalization, alleviating world poverty and tackling climate change. These are the lessons that we should, by now, have learned. I hope that our Prime Minister will be straight with the British people on the issues that arise at Lisbon. We want a successful Europe, but it must be a Europe that concentrates on the things that people really do support and understand.

Edite Estrela (PSE). - Queria começar por agradecer, em nome da delegação portuguesa socialista, todas as manifestações de pesar pela morte do meu querido amigo Fausto Correia. A sua morte deixa-nos a todos muito mais pobres, à democracia portuguesa, ao Partido Socialista português e também a este Parlamento.

A uma semana da cimeira informal quero estar optimista e acreditar que o bom-senso vai prevalecer. Quero estar optimista e acreditar que cada um dos 27 Estados-Membros vai assumir as suas responsabilidades políticas perante os cidadãos dos respectivos países, perante os cidadãos europeus e perante o mundo. Quero acreditar que no dia 19 de Outubro o Conselho Europeu vai fechar o acordo político e vai aprovar o Tratado Reformador, pondo termo a este impasse que se prolonga há demasiado tempo.