Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.2.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you very much for this debate and to thank you for your opinions on the programmes, which, as you know, we have had to restrict, for next year will be a year of limited activity, being the last year of the Commission and Parliament’s terms of office. We must take into account the fact that Parliament will have to suspend its work for much of the year and that the Commission will change twice: once in May – although that will only be an expansion rather than a change – and then, again, in autumn at the natural end of its term of office. That is why the programme we have put forward is very limited, containing proposals that can feasibly be implemented in 2004; no more than what is feasible, taking into account, not least, the experience we gained in implementing the work programme for 2003, with the good and bad points of that process.
I was asked another question on cohesion policy. Our ideas will be outlined in a political document which will be presented before the specific proposals for the Financial Perspective. I would emphasise two of the areas we are working on: firstly, cohesion will continue to operate in order to prevent the regions which are lagging behind from being marginalised, and, secondly, cohesion will be more explicitly linked to the sustainable growth programme we are developing on the basis of the experience we have gained from managing the Lisbon and Gothenburg processes. The same applies – and I am responding to Mrs Frassoni here – to the issue of sustainability with regard to Kyoto and to that process.
As regards OLAF, there is a key concept: we are on no account trying to turn the Eurostat crisis into an OLAF crisis. All the observers with any sense have seen that the information channel between OLAF and the Commission failed to work and is still not working, and it would be irresponsible of us not to do something about this problem. Nobody is thinking of removing OLAF’s responsibility for internal investigations: quite the opposite, all investigations must continue to be carried out by an OLAF which is even more efficient. We do not plan for any more bureaucratic bodies to be created, a point raised by Mr Barón Crespo and the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets. In my opinion, we have made quite a simple plan, but, listening to these concerns, I feel it would be right and proper to discuss the matter further, to talk again, for it is not our intention to make the institutions even more complex by adding more structures. We merely want to be in a position to gather together all the relevant pieces of information – not all of which were available in this case – from the different parts of the Commission, in order to be able to take a clear, rapid decision on any measures to be adopted so that OLAF can proceed with full knowledge of the facts and we can take a fully-informed decision. The decision – of whether or not to open an investigation – will remain entirely at the discretion of OLAF. It will be for OLAF to decide, like any investigative body, whether the case is sufficiently important for an OLAF inquiry to be opened or whether it is of purely administrative significance, or whether, quite simply, no action is necessary. This will be decided by OLAF.
In response to Mr Blak, I would like to say that, if we continue to stir up dust, we will not be benefiting anyone, least of all the European citizens. We have produced independent, accurate, factual reports which have shed light on all the points and have not revealed evidence of any irregularities after 1999. We are looking into other specific proposals which we will discuss with Parliament. I will not accept
kangaroo courts or summary sentences: everything is in order where the past is concerned and we are working on more effective measures for the future too.
I will conclude my speech with two points: as regards services of general interest, which are at the centre of our attention, the programme mentions a sequel to the White Paper because, as things stand, the idea of presenting a proposal for a directive has not been excluded but has not yet been decided upon. We are working on it and the decision will be taken in the light of the debate which is currently starting. Clearly, if the
legal basis is included in the final text of the Constitution, that will be an extremely important factor, for it will make it possible for us to work on this.
Lastly, a personal response to Mr Poettering: I would remind him, first of all, of the total legitimacy of the document containing my opinions, my experiences and my dreams, too, regarding the future of Europe. I have to say that it is also a legitimate part of my duty to express my political opinion
a duty which my predecessors discharged liberally and, in many cases, to a greater degree than I have, taking an intensely active role in party politics, as I consider to be right and proper and increasingly important for the Commission’s development. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats itself, quite rightly, has already mentioned the fact that the results of the political elections will be taken into account when the new Commission President is appointed. This has been decreed – as, I feel, is right – because the Commission is increasingly becoming a political organ which takes the general interest into account in its work but which cannot fail to have a public opinion, otherwise, ladies and gentlemen, you would have had no reason to give me your vote of confidence. You gave me your vote of confidence on the basis of a political line!
I would like to say a word about the content too. I am very happy, Mr Poettering, to hear you criticise the Italian newspaper which called you before reading the document, for if it had read it, it would have found there the spirit of our founding fathers and your own words, the words you speak when you are not weighed down by the burden of the Eurosceptics who surround your group, words with which we agree and have agreed many times in the past.
We have 126 priorities, some old and some new, on which we can guarantee delivery and action. These are crucial, major priorities, but, clearly, we cannot guarantee anything in addition to them. We are also working, as has been explained, on the Financial Perspective. We are a great deal in advance with our work, not least because we were quite aware that the interruptions in the coming year will cause substantial delays.
I want to say to you that I am President of all Europeans, and I have to express my political opinions before all the citizens. Therefore, I wonder why the words of such an intensely European programme which are so dear to you, Mr Poettering, and to us all, can cause such concern. Because people are frightened by values and projects in which you have consistently firmly believed?
The question you are asking is whether the Commission is going to present specific legislative proposals. Yes we are: to start with, we present them as the lines of a political project, and then, of course, we supply the facts and figures later on, when the political project has been approved. I would, moreover, stress that this Commission has made enlargement its main objective and will present its project for an enlarged Union. All the specific legislative proposals will be made by the enlarged College, after 1 May 2004, that is, and then we will have to discuss the timetable for work after that.
A number of major issues have emerged from the debate, including – and this was raised by many speakers – the issue of the Stability Pact. I would like to make it quite clear that the Commission will enforce the Stability Pact in the proper manner and according to the proper conditions. We are the guardians of a rule which has been handed to us by the governments. I still remember the eyebrows of the German Minister for Finance, when I was Prime Minister of Italy, as they frowned at me, forcing me to accept the Stability Pact.
We have now made it more flexible and, I believe, more workable, and the Commission will enforce it properly in this framework, taking into account the genuine problems but also bearing in mind that the Pact is the basis of our protection of the euro. We must establish it as such.
I would like to address another minor postscript to you as Members of Parliament. We are talking about the Stability Pact, but while we are arguing numbers, fractions and decimal points, there are developments taking place in the political arena which I feel give cause for concern. I will give just one example: the attempt by Ecofin to bring about what would essentially be the end of the Stability Pact through intergovernmental and extra-institutional agreements. This is much more serious than any other issue. If this attempt succeeds, it will be the end of that little – which is too little, as I have reiterated many times here before you – economic governance which the Union has. It is not a question of any particular country: the entire Ecofin system is, at present, heading in that direction. I would like to hear not just the Commission but Parliament, too, speak out loud and clear on this matter.
Indeed, I do not mean to be malicious when I say that this plot is not completely free of attempts, which we have witnessed in recent days, to divest Parliament of its annual and multiannual budgetary powers, which are already too few. At the moment, I believe it is in our common interest not to be excluded from one of the greatest political processes, from one of the most important decisions affecting the work of our Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples