Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040210.9.2-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down, Western Europe was in the process of creating the great single market, an objective that we set for 1992. History decided that the huge expectations linked to integration would in turn be linked to the unexpected hope of unifying the whole of Europe in peace and democracy. Since that extraordinary moment, we have taken huge steps forward, and large parts of the democracies born out of the collapse of the Soviet bloc will soon be part of the Union. Our economy, despite the problems and uncertainties, is enjoying an unprecedented level of prosperity; in Europe we have a quality of life that is the envy of the world; and, above all, differences in wealth and opportunity between the Member States have been reduced over the years: this is a success that no other political organisation can boast of.
I will now move on to briefly explain the key points. As I have said, there are three major priorities: to encourage sustainable development, to put into practice the idea of European citizenship and to strengthen the role of the Union as a key player on the world stage. So: sustainable development, European citizenship and the role of the Union in the world.
I would like to stress one aspect of the first point. Since the internal market is for the most part already in place, we need to incorporate related policies in the broader context of a growth strategy. This is a very important proposal, which changes the hierarchy in the Union budget: we are now in a position to promote the competitiveness of European businesses by exploiting the fact that they are already operating in a market with no internal borders. I must repeat that there is only one way to increase competitiveness: through quality, technological development, research and innovation; in a broader sense, the absolute priority is investment in human resources. This is the unifying point, the major change in this financial proposal. It is absolutely essential that we devise a common strategy at European level to link up our research centres and to produce the best scientists and the best academics in the world. Europe and the world of education needs to be opened up to life-long learning. We have the tradition, we have the ability, we have the infrastructure; it is now up to Europe to invest all the necessary economic and political resources.
Turning now to the second point, I have often said that, even now, our citizens may sometimes feel that they have split loyalties: to their city, to their nation, to Europe. One of our objectives will be to put the principle of European citizenship into practice. The Union must work together with the national governments to guarantee the same level of human rights, security, protection and quality of life across its territory. This involves the fight against crime and terrorism; it involves the joint management of external borders and of migratory flows that takes into account the human dignity of the immigrants and considers them to be a valuable resource for our economy and our society. It involves, finally, developing services of general interest that are the backbone of our social model, such as health, food safety, education, energy and transport.
Above all, now the Union’s final borders are being outlined, the time has come to picture a real European identity. This will be the new frontier in the decades to come. There will probably not be any geographical advances, but there will certainly be progress on the spiritual front. We must, therefore, also work to encourage creativity and exchanges in the fields of culture, the arts, literature and methods of mass communication.
Finally, as regards the role of the European Union in the world, enlargement and the prospect of the complete unification of our continent, Europe will really be able to become a force for stability and a reference point across the world. The time has, however, come to shoulder the responsibilities that this entails in a mature way. Firstly, we must assume a clear responsibility at regional level by implementing the Commission strategy to develop a circle of friendly countries. Over the next few years, we must develop this neighbourhood policy to share projects and policies with our neighbours and to guarantee peace and stability by spreading greater prosperity and our founding principles.
Our responsibility does, however, go beyond our role at regional level. Europe must maintain and increase its contribution to growth, because the gap in opportunities and living conditions between the North and South of the world is incompatible with our political, civil and human traditions. This state of affairs is also not in our interests, and it increases the irregular migratory flows that so alarm our citizens. The Union must, therefore, continue to encourage dialogue, peaceful solutions and multilateral approaches. We must find a single voice on the world stage, with the ultimate objective of having a joint representation in assemblies such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All over the world there are people that see in us a hope for peace and a wise and balanced force. We cannot disappoint these expectations; we must overcome our differences and, together, propose the model that we have fine-tuned in the course of 50 years of the Union’s existence.
These, ladies and gentlemen, are just some of the many objectives contained in our Communication. To achieve them all, as we are constantly being called on to do, we need a far larger budget than that which we have been given up to now. Nevertheless, the Commission is realistic, extremely realistic. We have worked meticulously for a whole year– involving six groups of Commissioners and all of the College on several occasions in various seminars, and also all the Directorate Generals and every government – and the materials for this huge amount of preparatory work will be published on the Internet, if you want, and are able, to use them to make it possible to have a more detailed debate. We have analysed, assessed, taken decisions and arranged for reforms. We have decided, not without difficulty, to remain within the current ceiling of the Union’s own resources, in other words 1.24% of European GDP, plus the ACP (EDF) cooperation funds that have to be entered into the budget.
It is on this basis that we have acted with rigour, determination and clear intent to review expenditure which, by limiting payments to an average of 1.15% of GDP, leaves us sufficient margin to be able to work calmly. We are convinced that, even if it is certainly not sufficient to achieve the objectives sought by the Member States – and put to us unanimously by the Member States – it will be possible, with a sum of this size, to achieve specific results. Indeed, we are concerned not just with numbers but also with the effectiveness of expenditure.
We do not confine ourselves to justifying the need for resources, but we are also setting out a new structure to use them in a better and more rational way. This means continuing to improve the administrative culture and governance of the European Union. If, in fact, we maintain, on the one hand, that, in a large number of cases, action at European level is necessary and more effective, the Commission plans, on the other hand, to involve other bodies to rationalise the implementation of our measures on the ground. In particular, the partnership with the Member States is a relationship involving the ever more active mobilisation of the regions and local authorities.
Finally, we are working on greatly simplifying the instruments that are currently used. To give you just one example, we propose to reduce the measures currently used in the field of external relations from more than 100 to six, each one dedicated to a specific political and operational area.
We cannot, however, say that we are satisfied. We cannot because, for some time, doubt has been taking root in the hearts and minds of Europeans. This is a reaction to the process of globalisation of the planet with the far-reaching and ever-faster changes that it entails. Today, Europe wonders if it will be in a position to keep hold of the levers of change in order to continue to control globalisation, or if it will confine itself to accepting the situation and protecting itself against the dangers. We need only to listen to the questions asked by the citizens, questions that are very simple. They are asking the following: are the cultural reference points with which we identify going to be eradicated? Why is it that sometimes – in fact, often – becoming old implies the risk of getting poorer? Why do young people face so much unemployment and precariousness? Questions like this give rise to two opposing attitudes: one part of our society withdraws into itself, searching for an illusory security behind antiquated, and sometimes tribal, slogans, which foment xenophobia and intolerance; but the overwhelming majority of Europeans, however, look to us for positive answers and always ask us what Europe is doing.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Communication that I am presenting to you today is not a technical accounting document; it is a political declaration and I ask you to look at it as such. It aims to provide the operational framework for managing the major changes to the Union in future years. The Commissioners, the Commission departments and myself have devoted ourselves to the task with energy and enthusiasm, and I am sure that you will not fail to see this energy and enthusiasm fully reflected in the results of our work. These pages are, for the Commission, a major expression of renewed trust in Europe and its institutions. We now hand them over for Parliament and the Council to analyse, and I would be happy if, for you too, they were also a message full of hope and realism for our future.
This is a healthy and mature position because it assumes a simple fact: no European country can act alone in the globalised world and no one can, alone, meet the challenges of the rise of the large countries of Asia, the technological challenge of North America or the migratory flows from the South. The strength to meet these challenges – our strength – lies solely in our Union. Time has proved Monnet, De Gasperi, Adenauer and Schuman right; we must combine what we have in common; we must fight for the common interest because that is the only way in which we can protect the individual’s interests.
Ladies and gentlemen, the launch of the Lisbon Strategy in 2000 was the culmination of our collective recognition of this situation; in Gothenburg, the project was completed, fully incorporating sustainability as a key component, and this strategy generated energy and enthusiasm; it made the Spring European Council the high point in terms of control, drive and determination.
Nevertheless, despite everyone’s efforts, this process is faltering. Operational decisions are becoming increasingly rare and, often, we are limited to calls for voluntary action. Why is this the case? Because, in order to have a real impact, the strategy needs a project that is coherent and verifiable; it needs to organise the necessary instruments, those of the Member States and of the Union, which includes the Union budget. We must, in fact, use our resources to increase the prosperity of Europe in line with its values; we need to transform the Union into a dynamic knowledge-based economy; we need to ensure jobs for our citizens and make economic growth socially and environmentally sustainable.
Before going into the detail of some of today’s decisions, I want to explain the spirit that drives us and the procedures we followed. Budgetary planning is about linking resources to needs. Since resources are limited, financial decisions must follow priorities and political choices; that is, follow and not precede: this is a fundamental concept. I have stated on many occasions that it is unacceptable to plan the future of our finances on the basis of a simple percentage point. Some have said – in all seriousness too – that the Union budget must not be more than 1% of European GDP. The problem with this position is that it puts figures before the political project: it is like starting to build a house from the roof. I understand that countries introducing difficult reforms also want the Union to apply restrictive policies; nevertheless, this approach is incoherent because national expenditure – at the level of each individual state – and Union expenditure – incurred jointly – are not interchangeable as they are different in qualitative terms. The Union budget is not unnecessary expenditure that must be reduced to a minimum; Community expenditure funds common policies, that is to say those activities that the Member States have decided to manage together; these are more effective than national initiatives and, in many cases, are unavoidable because they address problems that are by their very nature supranational. There are many instances, in the life of the EU, where EUR 25 spent together is worth more than one euro spent in each of 25 countries. This is an absolutely essential concept that we should fix in our minds. Making savings in the Union’s budget does not increase national public resources, but only undermines the foundations of the house we all live in. We must, however, channel the available resources towards the priorities in such a way as to maximise the benefits.
For all of these reasons, the Commission discussed the new Financial Perspective by first examining what needs to be done – that is to say, starting with the project for the Europe that we want to see – and then, only afterwards by tackling figures and percentages. The results do not, however, depend solely on the amount available. For example, we have established that the current budgetary structure and certain management rules are too rigid and that this rigidity has often put a brake on the Union’s work to the detriment of the common interest. This is not just an issue of the quantity of resources, but also of the way in which they can be managed. We are, therefore, also proposing a budgetary structure that can respond more flexibly to new and unforeseen circumstances.
I would like to make one final, fundamental observation before moving on to the specific aspects of the proposal. Every organisation’s financial plan is, as we have said, an expression of its underlying principles. Of the Union’s principles, the one that I would like to stress is that of solidarity between the citizens and the Member States, solidarity that sees resources transferred from the richer countries to the poorer countries and regions.
Our plan is in line with this underlying political decision and develops it in a new way, by placing cohesion policy more clearly at the service of competitiveness and employment than was previously the case. There are essentially three reasons behind this decision: it is a choice in favour of coherence, justice and opportunity. I say coherence because the key objective of our political policies in future years will be to encourage sustainable development. Unbalanced development will spawn rejection and fear of Europe in the most disadvantaged and outermost regions, rather than trust and involvement. Furthermore, it is a question of justice because no one can be asked to participate in a joint project without being given the opportunity of keeping in step with growth. Finally, it is a question of opportunity, because experience teaches us that balanced and sustainable development, especially in the poorest regions, is itself a source of further prosperity for the richest regions. This is the thought underlying the financial plan that I put before you today."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples