Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.3.2-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this clear, practical, substantial debate. The only thing I would ask is that you view my speech as just part of an overall debate which is taking shape day by day. The “short speeches” technique adopted by Parliament means that we have to view all our speeches as part of the same debate as the speeches made yesterday and last month, and I would stress that, whereas last month we laid down the general guidelines, this time our debate has been detailed, for an annual legislative programme must be detailed.
We must, of course, be thorough in this, as we are not supposed to be just drawing up general guidelines, and this is related to the third point which you addressed to me on the report on our actions. Each year, we present a report on the actions we have undertaken. In February, we presented an annual report on the actions carried out in 1999, which we would like to expand. It already covers all the actions carried out, but we would like to provide more information on our current work.
These are the plans for a great European Union, plans with a specific objective. If we do not implement these plans there will be no place for us in the new world. A criticism was made of globalisation, which to me is absurd, for globalisation is already underway. The problem is rather how to accomplish it. Do we want to play a leading role in this globalisation? Do we want behave responsibly in respect of developing countries and the Third World in this matter? I feel that this is an extremely important strategy. We can no longer allow ourselves to disregard Seattle. On the contrary, we must take up the Seattle debate again, and do so immediately, in an endeavour, of course, or rather, with the firm objective of correcting the errors which caused Seattle to fail. There is an obvious need for a collective conscience which will take care of the whole world and not just our own particular interests. Woe betide us if we try to halt globalisation, for it is the one remaining hope for Italy, for China, for the world which is trying to develop in this global economy. We cannot stifle these countries at such a decisive moment as this.
This, therefore is our destiny, and our task is to create a Europe which is increasingly able to play a proper role. And enlargement is a part of all this: it is not just a means of preserving peace, it is a means of defining our role.
To return to the subject of enlargement, the Commission has taken a firm position, which is audacious but also resolute and responsible, for the objections raised are of two kinds: on the one hand, there is the desire to bring about enlargement immediately, which is a desire we share, but, on the other, there is the urgent need to specify clearly the implications of enlargement and the means by which it is to be brought about. I am aware that my statement that we must allay the fears of public opinion in the applicant countries and the Member States as part of the enlargement process did not go down well in some of the applicant countries, being received with some concern, but my intention is to provide them, as well as ourselves, with a guarantee, for if merely a suspicion were to be raised that, in practice, enlargement was only superficial, pubic opinion would turn against this great, historic move, this seminal event which will define our activity and which gives a moral dimension to the political sphere we are trying to build.
To sum up, this overall balance, this sense of mission, this feeling of compatibility which guides the actions of every Parliament and every government, must preside over enlargement, the budget, and governability.
This debate has clearly revealed the vital importance of our cooperation. Literally all the subjects we have touched on this morning – the need for a major operation to coordinate the budget, the need for a joint action and the need to adopt a position on the Intergovernmental Conference and on relations with the Council – all require Parliament and the Commission to work together.
This is why our approach to the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference is so important, for the very reason that that is where the rules which will govern our all our future activities will be defined, for we cannot hold another Intergovernmental Conference immediately after this one. There has to be a break.
Today, concern was expressed over the length of the list of subjects to be put to the vote. Well, in my opinion, today was the right time to deal with the list and the right time for in-depth analysis. Of course, certain areas are missing from this list. Many of you have rightly expressed the opinion that tourism is a subject which is missing, which, as has been said, is a larger employer than agriculture. Of course, we must turn our attention to this matter, although, as you are aware, the Commission’s powers in this area are rather limited.
In any case, the list contains many subjects, the details of which will have to be discussed in committees. Among those referred to – and I agree with the objection raised by one of the Members present – were the health and safety of workers, social policy, the consolidation of foreign policy, the elimination of the immense delays caused by Commission red tape and the various practical projects such as GALILEO, regional policy and education. There is therefore a series of issues on which we must work together this year. However, we also have a major opportunity, which was welcomed by a great many of you today, in that our economy looks set to be sound for at least two or three years. We must make the most of this opportunity, since, as you have pointed out, we have a major problem with our budget. Today’s speeches reveal a precise, but ruthless analysis. On the subject of agriculture, we cannot relinquish existing resources, which are considered to be vital for the basic subsistence of certain agricultural areas, but, on the other hand, we have foreign policy commitments, such as Kosovo and others, and there are therefore imbalances in our budget. We can, in part, correct these imbalances with an economy which, we hope, will expand at a rate of over 3% per annum – as Mr Elles pointed out – thereby increasing our resources, but we are all well aware that even these resources will not be sufficient to achieve a proper balance between available resources and the programmes and objectives which have been mentioned today.
In addition, it is vital for Parliament and the Commission to work well together to make these decisions. This is the moment of truth, the moment when, together, we must take stock of our future, that is the limits for the budget, establishing the fundamental decisions to be taken and the major actions to be undertaken to shape our future.
On the one hand, this should be our focus in the coming months, but, on the other, as you have pointed out, there is the issue of competences, governability and the European Constitution, namely the powers of the countries, regions and
. I am fully aware of this. Last week, I met with the official representatives of the German
to discuss this issue, and we did not confine ourselves to decentralisation at all: the discussion went much deeper than that. We talked about the levels of governability which need to be adopted in Europe, not decentralisation..
It is for this reason that I have continued to push for a White Paper on governability. We are in the process of creating something completely new. We may receive criticism, be limited in our actions and encounter technical setbacks, but we are breaking down the intellectual barriers of politics with this experiment. And in order to do this we must work together. The White Paper on governability, on the one hand, and the difficulties of balancing the budget, on the other, are the two pillars upon which we must base a joint political action for the short term.
I can assure you of only one thing: the method adopted by the Commission is a method which genuinely does start from the drawing board (whiteboard, not blackboard), upon which we must set down our ideas regarding what would be best for the future of the institutions for which we are responsible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples