Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-14-Speech-3-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040114.1.3-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the speech Bertie has made makes my job much easier, because the Presidency and the Commission are in complete agreement. The Dublin meeting laid the foundations for close cooperation and the essential points he has put forward are shared by the Commission.
or rather, with his forceful and formerly youthful vehemence – made a speech on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and criticised the Commission for its decision. I must tell you all that this was a painful decision that I found difficult to make. I am well aware that making decisions like this one has its consequences. I had to make it for a simple reason: rules have to be obeyed, even if it does not make me happy to do so.
This is a democratic principle, and so it was the Commission’s duty to call for the rule to be obeyed, but at the same time it has also been the Commission’s duty to prepare the changes needed for the future. I have very often been generous in this direction, ladies and gentlemen – perhaps too much so – but the finance ministers have never given me any leeway in the matter. I therefore call on you to help the Commission – or rather I call on us to help each other – to submit proposals that can truly bring new development and new energy to Europe’s economic policy.
In the very few minutes available to me I should like to recall a number of aspects that are of the greatest political significance: first, an appeal for a general effort to support political pluralism. The speech made about the United Nations and the role it should have and the urgent call for human rights must be the basis for our future work; on this we agree. It was also extremely important to mention the strong, positive relationship between the United States and Europe, and it is interesting that the whole of Parliament accepted that, while adding that the relationship should be on an equal footing. Remember, however, that an equal footing is not something that is given lightly: we can only gain an equal footing if we succeed in building a strong Europe that can make decisions, a Europe that is truly able to negotiate on an equal footing. This is the task that we, together with the Irish Presidency, must carry forward.
With regard to enlargement, and in response to several Members’ queries, I can assure Parliament that we are moving with the utmost speed on the appointment of the new Commissioners. I repeat, by the end of February, after I have been round all the capitals and shortlisted all the Commissioners, I will bring you their names here. You must be aware that these Commissioners – you are well aware of this – will only be here for a few months because after that they will have to be nominated. I have, however, asked the Heads of State or Government of the new Member States to put forward the names of strong candidates, people who will be able to stay on, so that there can be continuity in political action, so that the continuity of the Commissioners that they nominate can make up for the fact that these countries are only now joining the Union. In answer to Mr Poettering, you will be able to see the political balance as well as the personal abilities of these new Commissioners during their interviews. I can assure you that the results so far have been quite flattering: the governments of the various states have been sending us people who have held or still hold the highest political offices in their countries. I believe this will also be imitated by the current Member States when the time comes to nominate their new Commissioners, because the Commission is becoming an increasingly political body with ever greater political responsibilities.
On the subject of the constitution, there has been a widespread call that we have to acknowledge: Convention, Convention, Convention! Any attempt to move in a different direction is doomed to failure, doomed to produce no results, and I believe the way in which Bertie Ahern has approached this challenge is the best we can hope for and is the most likely to succeed. We are all too aware, Mr President, that no success is assured and that the situation is difficult but, by looking carefully at our current difficulties and the great result that the Commission has given us, we will surely get good results.
Lastly, I should like to mention the matter of Lisbon. I take on board Mr Doyle’s impassioned appeal, when he put his finger on the spot and quite rightly said that we have talked a lot about Lisbon but achieved very little. Unfortunately, this is true. We have been talking about Lisbon now for four years, and so, once again, I am going to make appeal: let us direct every possible effort towards human resources. We need human resources at all levels: at a national level in compulsory and university education, and at European Union level in top-level research. We need a joint effort. We cannot achieve the results outlined in Lisbon when we realise that 400 000 European researchers are currently working in the United States – I repeat, 400 000 European researchers are currently working in the United States – and when we realise that, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives, we will have to raise the number of our researchers by 700 000 over ten years, or we shall not achieve the Lisbon objectives.
The most competitive society in the world does not come about all by itself, as you are well aware, and here we come up against a serious contradiction. On several occasions – in my speech a moment ago and at other times – I have proposed that major laboratories should be set up; we have even included this item in the financial perspective; we have also talked about the European Science Foundation to be able to coordinate cutting-edge research, for otherwise this research will not achieve the results we want. It is quite clear that we really have to do this, but we cannot do it when letters arrive proposing cuts in the European budget, as if money spent at a European level were money down the drain, as if this money did not in fact achieve greater synergies and have a greater effect on development than money spent at a national level.
Until we get rid of this idea, and of course choose the fields in which money spent in Europe is most effective – although there is no doubt at all that research is an area where it is most effective – we shall not be able to have a truly great Europe.
Lastly, a final observation on the Stability and Growth Pact: Mr Cohn-Bendit, with his forceful and youthful vehemence"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Amused protests)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples