Toespraak EP-voorzitter Schulz voor leden Europese Commissie (en)

Mr Barroso, Members of the Commission,

Thank you very much for inviting me to attend your meeting today.

For the first time in the history of the European Union, collapse of the EU i has become a realistic scenario. The close cooperation which exists between the Commission and Parliament is therefore an important sign that we are defending the Community method with determination.

This is particularly the case at a time when the situation in many Member States is that xenophobia is growing, the euro is being called into question and Europe's open internal borders within the Schengen Area are threatened.

In the past few months we have witnessed a disturbing trend towards renationalisation and 'summitisation': the Heads of State and Government are arrogating more and more decisions to themselves, debating and taking decisions behind closed doors and in disregard of the Community method.

Parliamentarians are then invited merely to rubberstamp the decisions which Heads of Government have already taken in Brussels.

In the latest crisis we are seeing an acceleration in the creation of Parliament-free zones.

By means of the Fiscal Compact, an attempt was made to create a Fiscal Union beyond the control of Parliamentarians, by-passing the Commission.

After a tenacious struggle with the Heads of Government, Parliament managed to restore respect for its role as a co-legislator with equal rights, the Community method was defended and the Commission became the central institution of the Fiscal Compact.

That is undoubtedly thanks in part to the willingness of the President of the Commission to fight his corner.

It is good that he displays that willingness, although the arrangements could have been made in a simpler and above all less dangerous way without undertaking the perilous venture of revising the Treaty.

Yet even so, not all the dangers have been dispelled:

In its present form, the European Semester requires a draft national budget to be forwarded to Brussels before the Budgets Committee of the national Parliament concerned has even seen it.

In Brussels, Commission officials rather than elected representatives will then study the draft budget. Not even the criteria for assessing the budget possess any democratic legitimacy.

This undermines the quintessential prerogative of Parliaments: the right to determine the budget. That creates a democratic deficit.

Decisions which lack transparency are something which our citizens will never be able to understand. They damage the EU's legitimacy. I predict that their dissatisfaction will be directed primarily against you and the Commission.

In the interests of the people and of the Community method, I would call upon you to support the European Parliament in its battle for democracy and legitimacy.

Together we can oppose the trend towards summitisation and renationalisation.

This development is extremely dangerous, as we were reminded again only last week by the Franco-German call for the reintroduction of border controls: any assault on freedom of movement is an assault on the foundations of the European Union.

I expect you as the Commission to strongly oppose such attempts.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am happy to be attending the very meeting at which the Draft Budget for 2013 has been adopted. Allow me to formulate an initial response to what you have said, as seen from the point of view of the European Parliament:

If the EU assumes obligations, it must fulfil them. We do not see this as negotiable, least of all in the case of the budget.

An ambitious EU needs an ambitious budget. That is absolutely fundamental in our eyes.

At first sight, it may not be evident - during a crisis, of all times - why the payment appropriations should be increased in the budget for 2013.

But it is a matter of chickens coming home to roost after some Member States pushed through an unrealistically small budget in the previous two years.

Sooner or later, everyone has to pay their bills - even the European Union! Even the Member States! As one example, just consider ITER.

Your statements on the 2013 budget, colleague, seem perfectly reasonable at first sight.

The Committee on Budgets will now of course consider your Draft Budget in detail. If, after this examination by our budgetary experts, the impression is confirmed that it represents a legitimate approach by the Commission - that payments are being called for which the regions should have received long since - you may count on my personal and institutional support in the annual budget procedure.

As you know, the Lisbon Treaty assigns the President of Parliament an institutional role here, and it is one which I intend to play in the interests of the Community institutions and the people of Europe.

The same is true for multiannual financial planning as for the 2013 budget: the European Parliament will not accept irresponsible orgies of axe-wielding against the MFF.

I can only repeat what I have said before: the EU can only face the challenges of the present and future with a reasonable budget.

The Member States cannot with one hand transfer more and more responsibilities to the EU and with the other hand delete from the budget the appropriations needed to carry out these responsibilities.

Particularly at this time of crisis, that would be highly irresponsible.

Today, more than ever, people in Europe need EU investment to stimulate growth.

It is needed to compensate for cuts at national level.

It is needed to galvanise the economy again.

To create jobs.

The European Parliament calls for reasonable financial planning for the future. Because we are convinced that a reasonable EU budget creates concrete added value for people.

The EU budget is an instrument to create a secure future for all the people of Europe. In a spirit of solidarity, we wish to continue to invest in growth and employment, innovation and research.

On behalf of the European Parliament I would therefore say to you:

We will enter the negotiations well prepared.

We will make full use of our prerogatives - our right of assent in the MFF procedure and our co-decision powers in relation to multiannual programmes.

We are throwing down the gauntlet to all those who wish to implement cuts that will destroy Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me to say a few words about a project particularly close to my heart.

A few weeks ago I was elected President of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly.

Four years after its establishment, the Union for the Mediterranean is in a pitiful state: it is stagnating.

Not a single major integration project has yet been carried out; ministerial meetings have become less frequent; the second summit of heads of government has still not been held.

And this is happening at a time when incredible political and social upheavals are taking place in the Mediterranean region!

A year ago the Arab Spring began. Well educated and committed young people came out onto the streets to demonstrate against the arbitrary exercise of power, often risking their lives. They called for a dignified way of life and democratic participation.

As friends and partners we have a duty to accompany our neighbours on their road towards the establishment of free and democratic societies.

For in the years ahead, Parliaments will have a key role to play in keeping the promise of freedom held out by the Arab Spring by adopting new Constitutions.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Mediterranean is an exceptionally dynamic region with enormous economic potential; an area where 800 million people share a common destiny. Together we have challenges to overcome in ensuring peace, environmental protection, access to drinking water and sustainable development.

To this end we must ensure that the Union for the Mediterranean receives adequate funding. Only then will it also be able to tackle the projects to generate growth and jobs.

I would therefore appeal to you to give the Union for the Mediterranean the financial and political support it deserves.

Here too, as with today's other topics of debate, a significant element of what is at stake is money.

To demand more money at a time of crisis is certainly not a programme to be espoused by anyone who wishes to win a popularity contest.

But the responsibility which we bear for our people compels us to oppose those who wish to make cuts in the very places where we need the money most: when it comes to investing in our future.

Thank you.