Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-07-21-Speech-3-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040721.6.3-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will not be able to answer all the questions in just five minutes. I shall try to do that tomorrow in a more systematic way, but I would like to give you an idea at this point of my feelings about the questions that in some ways seem to me the most difficult and the most important. At the very least I would like to respond to those who have expressed reservations about my candidacy. Turning to Iraq, first and foremost, it is true that this issue divided us in Europe, that it created divisions between the countries of Europe and divisions within our countries, and even created divisions within the political families represented here. I believe that in the case of Portugal, if I may reply to Mr Costa's question, we succeeded to some extent in overcoming that division when our Parliament recently managed to approve the essence of a resolution to join forces in relation to the most recent United Nations resolution. I do not think it would be useful for Europe, or for the European Union project, for us to go back now and make hypothetical retrospective judgments or to say who was right. I believe that it is now important for us to be united in Europe, and not just on the basis of the resolution approved unanimously by the United Nations Security Council, because I believe that all of us in Europe have a fundamental interest in the stabilisation of Iraq, in seeing a truly independent Iraq, an Iraq at peace with itself and at peace within the region. If I am endorsed by the European Parliament as the President of the Commission, that is exactly what I shall do. Some honourable Members, however, link the issue of Iraq with other concerns, in particular relations between Europe and the United States, and European security and defence policy, to which I am firmly committed.
Firstly, as regards our relations with the United States, I would like to say that it is possible to be pro-European, as I am myself, and still advocate good transatlantic relations. I believe that those good relations are in our interest, in the interest of Europe, but I also think that they are in the interest of the world, taking a global view, and considering the enormous challenges we face at world level, in particular terrorism, the threats to the environment, the great epidemics and underdevelopment, none of which can be overcome by Europe alone. Europe alone is not enough. We need to take our key partners with us in a constructive way, including of course the United States of America. But I would like to make it clear that I am a European, that I am Portuguese and very honoured to be a European. If I am elected President of the Commission I will defend the general interests of Europe and the common good of Europe, and I will not accept Europe being treated as a second-rate power in any area whatsoever. I do not want there to be any doubt about that.
The third question relates to our concept of a common security and defence policy. In that context, I would like to explain that I still advocate today what I advocated before I became a candidate for the position of President of the Commission. I believe that it is helpful and necessary for us to build a common security and defence identity for Europe. I believe that is important and it was for that reason that as Prime Minister I advocated each and every step towards strengthening that European unity. What is more, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I had the honour of signing some of the instruments through which Portugal committed itself to building that very same identity, and in particular our membership of Eurofor and of Euromarfor, which represented the first steps my country took towards actively participating in a common security and defence identity.
The second question is about the role of the Commission, Parliament and the European Council. In this respect, I would like to repeat what I wrote and said before I was in this position. I have always defended the role of the Commission as a supranational institution, and as a truly communitarian institution. At the Intergovernmental Conference, the approaches I advocated involved giving greater independence and credibility to the Commission. At that time I did not know and could not even imagine that I would find myself in this position, but I believed then and continue to believe now that the Community method is essential. Now more than ever, with 25 Member States and 27, 28 or even more in the future, if we start to work in a purely intergovernmental way – and I am weighing my words carefully, but I shall say this nevertheless – it could spell the end of the European Union. If we adopt a purely intergovernmental approach, that is what could happen. We could end up with a group-based approach, with the Balkanisation of groups in the European Union, pitching the stronger against the weaker, the richer against the poorer, the centre against the remoter regions, and the large against the small. The only solution is to adopt the Community method advocated by the founding fathers of the European Union – Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi, Paul Henri Spaak, and many others. That is why I said in my speech that although we are not going to change values, we can change our approach to implementing those values. The Community method and the role of the Commission are accordingly essential and I therefore believe that the positive partnership between the Commission and the European Parliament that I mentioned earlier is important.
One eminent Member, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, advocated that Members should punish the Council, and should ‘shoot down’ its candidate for President of the Commission. I wish to say that if you want to punish the Council, Mr Cohn-Bendit, there are other far more practical and less painful ways of doing it than to punish me. There are many other opportunities to do it in this Parliament. However, the Commission could be your ally, Parliament's ally, and I have already said that I shall do everything to ensure that is the case, while respecting the competences of each institution. I have tried here today to demonstrate my respect for Parliament, just as I did during the hearings held with all the political groups. I also tried to do that in my own country in relation to the Assembly of the Republic, our national parliament. I can promise you faithful adherence to the principles of transparency mentioned here by various Members, among others by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. I therefore believe that if I am elected we should forge a dynamic alliance between those at the forefront of the European project. That is why I said that, although my party of course has the honour of belonging to one political family, I believe that the President of the Commission should not be the President for one political group, but that he should seek a consensus between all those who essentially share a belief in the same European project. I can discern the same European conviction here in the various political families, be it the Socialists or the Liberals and Democrats, the PPE-DE family or other honourable Members.
That is why, in response to some members of the Socialist Group and also of the Liberal Group, I wish to say that my approach is not a dogmatic one, nor is it a factional one. I believe that I demonstrated that when I was the only Head of Government who supported a Socialist politician as candidate for President of the Commission, and I did that because I was convinced that he was a good candidate for the job. What better proof could you have of a non-dogmatic and a non-factional spirit? If I am elected I shall work with the various political families, but of course more so with those who believe in the European project, and I shall conclude by making the following request: please do not caricature my position on social issues. As Prime Minister, I had to act in accordance with what I considered to be most urgent, but what one considers most urgent is not necessarily what is most important. In my order of priorities, social and cultural issues come ahead of economic ones. But I once said that if we are to achieve our objectives in terms of social justice, which I rank more highly than any others, then we need to take immediate economic and financial action. That is my vision for Europe. That is why I do not see the Lisbon Agenda simply as an agenda for competitiveness. Competitiveness is needed of course, but so are social cohesion and sustainable development, including environmental protection and a policy of European leadership in protecting the environment. That is why in presenting my agenda to you today for a partnership for Europe I spoke in general terms about three essential areas: prosperity, solidarity – on which I place particular emphasis – and security. I have in mind not only solidarity between the different regions, so as to respond to the needs of the new Member States, but also solidarity between the various social groups and classes, paying special attention to the most disadvantaged. That is my vision. I believe that it is possible to bring these components together. Let me repeat that I am a centrist reformer who wishes to work hand in hand with Parliament, and one who believes that Europe can be built with sufficient will. I need your support to give the Commission authority and credibility not to defend the Commission's own territory or indulge in institutional egotism, but because the Commission is the institution that represents the general interests of the European Union and the common good of Europe, and there is accordingly a natural communality of interest with the European Parliament, which is the voice of all Europe's citizens. If I win your confidence, that is the direction I undertake to work in."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples