EP Plenary session Debate with Angela MERKEL, German Federal Chancellor on the Future of Europe during the plenary session in Strasbourg (12-15/11/2018)  The following transcription is the result of an automatic process. Check Against delivery.

Strasbourg

debate

plenary session

future of the European Union (T)

EU - Germany (T)

MERKEL, Angela (DE)

Debate on the Future of Europe: Answers by Angela MERKEL, German Federal Chancellor (16:31 - 16:45)

SOUNDBITE (German), Angela MERKEL, German Federal Chancellor, Let me start by expressing thanks to colleagues who have expressed their views and replied to my speech to management Faber and Jean-Claude Juncker who both mentioned the topic of Great Britain. Let me say certainly as I see it I think it is extremely important.

The spirit in which we deal with the leaving of Great Britain and accept it and determine it we accept. I accept the decision of the people of Great Britain it must be respected and Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker are to be thanked because I think the spirit in which we are setting about this will decide for decades the way in which we will be able to have a partnership and UK has shown via Theresa May that two that they wish to be part of Europe.

It will come down to having shares of cooperation areas where we can cooperate and that is exactly what we want to do. I am saying that certainly as far as the German government is concerned. Now let me pick up some of the topics that were mentioned one topic which I think look good taco is important is the fact that Germany is a country with 18 million citizens and is economically strong and perhaps we have to be a little bit more careful than others when we represent our own interests but we do have interests and we do not agree with everybody always and neither do you with us. Let me point out that about 90 cases before the European Court of Justice. And we have accepted all of the judgments even the ones that didn't suit us.

And we know that there are differences of opinion. My friends in the TPP are of a different opinion than I am on North Stream. I think when it comes to what we do about climate change we will be using more gas and in countries such as Germany that is not going to have nuclear power at all in some years time. And is concentrating on renewable energy for the future and is making a very considerable contribution to protecting the climate in that way.

But we know at the same time if we're going to leave coal behind we're going to use gas for a bridging period and the gas imports need to be diversified. But we won't exclude Russia as a source. And I'm very keen to ensure that Ukraine as a transit country doesn't come off badly. But whether it comes via Ukraine or North Stream or South Stream these are Russian gas molecules. Europe won't be able to be independent of Russian gas. It needs to diversify its sources so Germany is going to be building an LNG terminal so that we will be able to deal with other possibilities for gas imports if some of the others dry up.

But we are going to be getting out of nuclear. We're going to be stopping coal. We do need renewable energy but also a part of that needs to be the gas for a period. Secondly the community method and the intergovernmental method. These have been mentioned. I would like to say that the community method as far as Germany is concerned has always been strengthened and will always be strengthened. But in the European Council at the moment we're in a situation where it's almost a motto that the European treaties can never ever be changed. Let me be frank with you that if you're going to align yourself with that thinking then Europe is going to become sclerotic.

We have a community which faces new challenges and must react to them and must therefore be able to face the future with treaties that can be changed. And I simply do not accept and cannot understand that you would have a motto that you would never change the treaties. But if you wish to act in a European way and the treaties don't give you the power to do that. And I've always said that the ESM needs to be in the eurozone protocol at the Lisbon Treaty.

It's not down to Germany. We could do that tomorrow but it's not very easy to get a majority in European Council for that. And if we can't do that then as a pre stage to being able to act jointly we need the intergovernmental approach. And it would have been far worse in the currency union if we'd not had that. So the one does not exclude the other. And I am pleading it expressly that we don't take treaty change as an end in itself.

But we do not exclude it. And saying will never ever change our own constitutions back home because well we were to do that then this would be a dereliction of our duty as a nation state. That brings me onto the point that was mentioned by quite a few groups and would appear to be mutually exchangeable. You know as well as I do that this is the case but if you've got a constitution or a basic law as you do in Germany then you have to have two thirds majority for it to be adopted. And nevertheless whenever you set about legislating on the basis of it you get disputes. And if it's to do with the basis of the European Union well fortunately in this house there is a large group which agrees on the basics of the foundations.

That's what you need and then you can get into intensive debate about how you put the basic principles together. But whenever we talk about those principles there is fortunately always a majority they should want to know what road is to be played by Germany you want us to do two things that one at the same time you want us to be visionary and lead the way with France for example. But of course also guarantee that the vision is close to reality so that the European Council with 28 and future 27 will adopt things unanimously.

Now that is a tension between vision and feasibility between member states and that must not be a growing gulf. At some point you have to enter into the realm of reality and achieve ability. And maybe when it comes to the setting of objectives that may be somewhat reticent but then there are people back home that want us to ensure that what we say is ultimately what we implement and it is out of respect for the individual member states. Weighing up what is to be done. I have to think about the possible trying to factor all of that into my thinking otherwise visions and my own conceptualization and I've be talking to some other to go about changing the treaties so that could be a vision and reality is a growing gulf.

And as far as I'm concerned Germany has always played a role in bridging that having ambitious goals but at the same time making sure that there is respect for others who do not always wish to pursue the same things. And that is also part of what EU is a word now on my Gration. I've also got a limited speaking time so let me move on to that migration now we are all proud of our values this is what Europe has been founded upon. Article 1 of basic law in Germany talks about the inalienable nature of human dignity.

But on our doorstep there's a terrible civil war and there's a huge challenge facing us with ISIS and Islam. Ms Zimmer let me just give you one example and G7 to illustrate what the German government was thinking about when we supported the Peshmerga with weapons to avoid a genocide. And we decided that we would support them. And I think that was the right decision even if it was not an easy decision to make. And I will continue by saying this We have a close migration partnership that's been established with share.

It's one of the poorest countries in the world. There are terrorists coming in from Mali because of the failure of the international community in Libya where they have armed with weapons the terrorists and Boko Haram from Nigeria as well. And the president of Nisha we say we could imagine training then we could imagine doing some expenditure but when it's a question of arming them to be able to fight the terrorists what Germany's fate is not be part of that.

The World Bank is not part of it. And we in the European development aid community of all stuck our heads in the sand. We don't get anywhere with that and I think it's always better if African soldiers are prepared to fight their own terrorists than we support them. But that's the way it has to be done.

I now we say well our French friends would deal with that. That's just not honest. Now further on migration there's been a civil war. There's still a civil war in Syria. This terrorist Islam and we've got six million refugees from Syria and Iraq and maybe a million people in Lebanon have been taken in by Lebanon and Jordan Jordan and we said at the start of the legislature I think I got this wrong. We didn't pay sufficient attention to people having at least one dollar for eating and some form of education in these refugee camps and the refugees came to us because they needed to save their lives.

And now the whole of Europe 500 million people have said in the face of the 6 million Syrians Iraqis we've taken one point one five million and we've helped them in a very dramatic situation where many Europeans were helped in similar way in previous times. Do you really think that that is something which has put us in a position of being unable to act. Obviously we must ensure that where you've got illegal migration people spending all their money on traffickers that we don't end up there. This is where we entered into the agreement with Turkey.

This has been much criticized. It was precisely to try and turn illegal migration into legal migration. The UN HCR has said. The people that we should be helping. That was our common goal but we weren't adequately prepared and we've had to learn from that. So we founded Frontex. We've got the Sofia project. We've got a partnership with Africa. We've built up the coast guard of Libya in Palermo. There's a Libya conference. And my only desire is that we would have a uniform Libya policy in Europe so that the people don't get two different stories being told to them. But that where we have not been sufficiently committed we can actually learn from the past.

And I think now we need to look up say we've learned from our mistakes. We will do it differently and this partnership with Africa is is precisely part of that let me round off with climate protection just said a little about gas. We've got very ambitious climate objectives and we will be trying to attain those objectives and in 2030. We really do need to make sure that with attain those goals we've got the climate legislation in place asMrs. Keller well knows. Let me say that it was a voting show in the G 20 under the presidency of Germany who tackled tax avoidance trying to put together a better international agreement. And this is precisely now what's being implemented. And I think Germany has played a very important contribution and bring that about.