Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.1.3-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, a brief response to some of the points that have emerged during the debate. Firstly, I am extremely pleased to see that Parliament has taken the will expressed by the Irish people very seriously, not just because it is representative – although the turnout was not very high – of the wishes of an entire people but also because it represents the wishes of an entire country. Most importantly, this will encourage us all to find new ways of governing Europe. It is a lesson, and I welcome the fact that a common desire has been shown – by Parliament, the Commission and the Swedish Presidency, as well as in the statement by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs read out by Mr Napolitano – to turn the page and change the way we run summits and legislate in Europe.
This is the real lesson we must learn, and therefore the great, transparent Convention which we are working towards must be the new approach, the approach upon which the European peoples can express their opinions in an informed manner, with peace of mind, familiar with the matter under consideration.
In an aside, Mrs Doyle touched on the statements made by Mr Solbes, myself and Mr Jospin, and their effect on the outcome of the Irish referendum. My answer relates to the Commission's statements. The opinion expressed on the Irish economy and on certain problems which had arisen was based on a large number of criteria to which we must adhere. It is the Commission's duty to adhere rigorously to these criteria, which were, moreover, agreed upon by the 15 countries, including Ireland. Our duty is not to make exceptions for some countries: our duty will be to apply the rules to small and large countries alike, for the Commission's duty is to be the guardian of the interests of all the European peoples and countries. This is what we have done thus far and this is what we will do in the future.
I would like to take the opportunity afforded by this brief answer to make two observations. Firstly, we must not disregard – and I would like to thank the Swedish Presidency once again – the great progress made in resolving the sticking points of the social guidelines. There had been an impasse in this area for a long time and they were a genuine problem: now another step forward has been taken. In this connection, I would also like to thank Mrs Diamantopoulou for her work.
Lastly, a reference has been made to the speech I made a few days ago on the need for a European tax. I would like to reiterate this concept, clear up any ambiguity and open a discussion with Parliament on this very sensitive matter. The Commission is working on it, it is analysing the possibility and feasibility of introducing such a tax, which will have to replace existing taxes and will not be an additional burden of any kind for the European citizens. We were quite clear about this from the very first time the matter was raised and we must continue to be so now. We must also, however, make it clear that this initiative is a response to an explicit request from the Council and Parliament. We must reflect on these matters, for the institutions must be democratic in matters of taxation as well, and thus the purpose of this hypothetical future tax is to replace the current – complex, obscure, non-transparent – system of contributions from national States and to make the citizens more aware that we have a democratic way of acquiring resources and a transparent way of spending the resources acquired. This is our absolute duty for, apart from anything else, we must combat as far as possible the attitude, often common in our Member States, of "I want my money back", the rather circumspect kind of accounting practised by the national States which leaves European institutions at their mercy.
In my opinion, this must change and, I repeat, it is a compulsory step for all democratic institutions: they must be able to count on clearly-defined resources – which can, of course, be transfers from national taxes to European taxes but must be clearly defined and specifically dedicated to the European institutions – and to answer equally transparently to the European citizens.
In my view, these are the methods that we must always use. If we use these methods, the attitude of the European peoples will become much more positive and much more sympathetic, for they will understand what we are doing with their trust and their money.
Finally, we must also take the lesson of the Irish referendum and the subsequent deliberations to heart. The European peoples want and must have an incisive, ambitious project on which to express their opinion. They want to have a comprehensive project to assess; they want to know what part of their future it is they are going to share with the other European countries. They harbour no preconceived hostility, they have not suddenly become narrow-minded: they simply have the right to understand, the right to be aware of every new step that takes place, every new step that will affect their lives.
Since we have to take decisions, now and in the near future, which are important for all the European citizens, we must set this course, we must move in this direction. And the convention is – or will be – the first tentative stage in this new era for the European institutions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples