Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-14-Speech-2-083"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040914.7.2-083"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the various speakers for their kind words referring to my cooperation with this Parliament.
I believe that the new enlargement brings great challenges, that we must continue to make progress on the neighbourhood policy and the Balkans Stability Pact, ensuring that they are accompanied by very concrete actions. For example, the creation of the electricity and gas markets throughout the Balkans are very concrete actions relating to the Balkans Stability Pact which can and must be continued by the new Commission and, throughout 2005, must be vigorously promoted.
I believe there must be a balance between competitiveness, social Europe and the environment, but we must be aware that if we do not have competitiveness, if we do not generate wealth in a globalised world, it will be difficult for us to respond to the requirements of a social Europe or to environmental concerns. That is something we cannot forget. Competitiveness must provide the framework for everything, and without competitiveness, without creating wealth and jobs, we will achieve nothing more than frustration, because we would have promised and agreed things which cannot be realised. They can only be realised on the basis of economic development and job creation which unquestionably require concrete action on aspects such as technological development and research.
With regard to the issue of suburban transport, public transport, Mr Swoboda has made a number of observations. On the subject of investments, I would like to point out that there are very important aspects relating to public transport which are affected by the Altmark judgment, a key judgment which will have to be taken into account not only in relation to the transport sector but in relation to all public services in the European Union and in relation to the introduction of competition and the possibility of public support in order to guarantee a certain level of service, but in a transparent and competitive way.
I would like to thank Mrs Grossetête for her kind words and this brings me straight to an issue I believe to be essential: a series of aspects relating to the problem of competitiveness. Relocation in certain fields is going to take place and it is reasonable that it should take place, because the only opportunity for new countries at global level is offered by certain types of less technological production, which do not present problems in terms of building, or production in outlying areas, which do not have to be close to the consumer. Relocation sometimes takes place, however, because we do not consider our objectives properly, but rather the instruments for achieving them.
I would, moreover, like to make an appeal in relation to the Kyoto Protocol and the Directive on emissions trading. We have approved a Directive and we must comply with it, but I would also like to make an observation which I have made publicly within the Commission. We must not simply state casually whether we are for or against the Kyoto Protocol. No. I am in favour of the Protocol. I support the reduction of greenhouse gases. What is more, I believe it to be one of the most important challenges not just for the European Union but for the whole of humanity. It is a challenge that truly endangers the future of humanity if not dealt with properly. In this regard, in terms of energy efficiency, I support renewable energy, and a true, honourable and courageous discussion of nuclear energy. This is absolutely necessary – and I am naturally saying this on my own behalf, I would like to make that clear – and I believe that the next Commission and this Parliament must confront this issue over the coming years.
Time is passing and the urgency is clear. This summer and last summer we have begun to see the first manifestations of the increase of less than one degree in the planet’s average temperature. If that is the case, we cannot resort to solutions which sound good but are false. Let me explain what I mean: the system of emissions trading may be a good one if implemented within the framework of a worldwide agreement, which is the only way emissions trading can have real effects. If that system operates within a context in which only the European Union fulfils those responsibilities, in which Kyoto is not ratified by Russia or the United States – the only two countries able to provide the critical mass to allow it to enter into force – we may find that we lose our steel, cement, tile, ceramics and other industries consuming energy, which would not mean pollution would be stopped, because the pollution would be created in third countries whose conditions are much less demanding. Steel, cement and ceramics would still be produced and we would have to import them into Europe, adding the cost and the emissions of the transport involved, while we would theoretically still be complying with that emissions reduction.
Is reduction in emissions a reality at an overall global level? No, it is not. This must be taken into account because we are endangering some of our industry without ultimately producing any real results in terms of the essential aim, which is to reduce emissions at global level. That cannot be done unless we have the courage to confront the problems of nuclear energy, to confront them, and we must provide the citizens with transparency and information and hence the Commission’s proposals. We must, moreover, understand that Europe must increase its nuclear energy potential and capacities and we must not put forward flippant arguments in relation to it, if we want to maintain growth and a degree of competitiveness and at the same time combat climate change. We must, furthermore, do this at global level.
Europe alone is not enough. If we make all the efforts I have referred to, we will reduce CO2 emissions by 400 million tonnes a year, more or less. China alone is going to increase its emissions over the next fifteen years by 4 000 million tonnes of CO2. These are the great challenges which need to be confronted urgently over the coming years and I hope that Parliament will do so and, naturally, I am sure that the next Commission will do so.
The question of nuclear energy is a personal position, but I believe that if we do not confront this problem we will clearly be failing to fulfil our responsibilities properly. We must act responsibly, because we all know that there are great problems in terms of popularity and public acceptance. And we must therefore provide explanations, information, transparency, security and guarantees.
The brain drain. It is not just that our best minds are leaving, but that it is to the United States, which is our ally, friend and partner, that not just our brains, but the best brains from the whole world, are going. And Europe is not receiving the best minds from third countries. We have stopped attracting intelligence, innovation and research. That is the key for the future. Europe must face this and it is one of the priorities we have included in the next financial perspectives and we hope this will be understood.
I shall begin by mentioning Mr Daul, with whom we have cooperated in his capacity as President of the Conference of Committee Chairmen throughout all this time in order to facilitate cooperation between Parliament and the Commission. I would like to remind you that when this Commission began its work our relations were very difficult. The outgoing Commission had been obliged to resign precisely because of the pressure and debates and confrontation with this Parliament. We needed to put that situation right and create an entirely different basis on which to rebuild a form of cooperation between the two institutions which is essential to building Europe, and it is through these two institutions, in one way or another, that the interests of the European Union are represented.
I would like to point out that, with regard to the aspects raised by Mr Kirkhope concerning competitiveness, he has referred essentially to fiscal responsibility and to the coherence of the broad economic policies, and I can only agree with him. I believe that the debate currently taking place in Europe on improving the functioning of the Stability Pact is extremely important and this is the approach we must take. And that means providing certainty and securities, that is to say, we cannot increase discretionality in our assessment of certain types of circumstance. Discretionality must be avoided, so that we do not act in an arbitrary manner. It must be avoided so that there is certainty, clarity and guarantees for the markets.
With regard to security, Mr Itälä has spoken about security, the environment, competitiveness, the Stability Pact; I agree entirely with what he has said, and I also agree with everything Mrs Thyssen said beforehand with regard to the problems of promoting competition and cohesion; I believe that the Kok report is a wonderful basis for work in this direction, and to Mrs Ludford, who talked about rhetoric and reality, I would like to say that I cannot agree with her, although there are times in politics when we all know that the reality is not exactly as we say it is. Those are, however, the concrete realities of budgetary efforts, the JHA is one of the items which, on the proposal of the Commission, is increased most in the draft financial perspectives for 2007-2013 according to the Commission’s proposal. It will be the Council that will adopt the final decisions. This Parliament also has to give its opinion.
With regard to the divisions or lack of divisions mentioned by Mr Dillen, I am not going to get into that. Clearly not everybody agrees all the time, but in the end an agreement is reached – and that is democracy – in accordance with the majority opinion, which is the opinion of the institution. Over all these years we in the Commission have not always held the same views, but we have had to reach agreements and we have all supported that position.
Ladies and gentlemen, it has been an honour for me to represent the Commission in terms of relations with the European Parliament, to have been elected, and in this respect I would like to thank President Prodi for having put his trust in me and for having proposed me as Vice-President for Relations with the European Parliament. I must say that I did not merely accept it, but rather I asked for it and I was delighted, because I consider myself first and foremost to be a parliamentarian. I have tried to cooperate faithfully with this House throughout these years and I believe I have done so. Furthermore, what I would like to say in particular is that I thank you for the work you have done in codecision, where generally speaking you have made improvements – sometimes we create some pretty extraordinary things in order to reach a consensus – but the overall result is hugely positive, since this Parliament reflects the sensitivities of the citizens of the European Union, complemented by those of the governments of the European Union.
Within this interactive dialogue, in which the Commission makes a proposal and then acts as mediator, I believe we have made the proposals approved in recent times more realistic. I believe that the reforms incorporated into the new Constitutional Treaty, which we all hope will be duly ratified as soon as possible, supplement, generalise and extend these parliamentary functions, ensuring simply that the functions of the European Parliament, which already has practically all the functions of any Parliament of the world, are extended to all areas of legislative responsibility. I would like to point out that the task of control has been enormously effective, at times uncomfortable, but has been carried out extremely effectively by the honourable Members and your predecessors in a responsible, intelligent, professional and honest way. I am sure that this new Parliament together with the new Commission will continue this work. Those are the essential elements of the European Parliament, which is one of the three great institutions which allows everybody to participate in this extraordinary and unique project of building Europe.
In this regard, I would like to thank this Parliament, the honourable Members and also the officials of this House, as well as the officials of the European Commission who have worked on the various documents and agreements, for making it possible amongst all of us to create a framework agreement and then this
for structured dialogue between Parliament and the Commission. Furthermore, these two documents, which have now been supplemented with the interinstitutional agreement – which the Council also participates in for the sake of better regulation – have resulted from discussions and negotiations which have not been easy but in connection with which we have all had the greatest possible interest in ensuring that things go well and work properly in order to build Europe more effectively. I would like to express my gratitude for the active participation of all the honourable Members who had direct responsibilities and for the cooperation of everybody who has participated in this work.
Mr Daul has referred to the progress and the fruits of this structured dialogue and has said that it must be improved in the future. I also believe that we can make it work better, but that that will be negotiated with the new Commission and I wish you luck in those talks and improvements.
He spoke finally about better communication, about more participatory democracy and increasing efficiency. We are all in agreement on this. He has talked about presenting legislative programmes in good time and introducing new concepts which until now have hardly been taken into account, such as the possibilities national Parliaments will have in the future with regard to certain texts. I would like to say that all of this will undoubtedly have to be incorporated, but at the same time there are limits if we do not want to paralyse the machinery entirely.
In any event, coordination with the Council is something which must be improved and something which we are working on, as well as coherence between legislative programmes and budgets.
Key to seeing if this is true will be the adoption of the future financial perspectives and whether these financial perspectives are genuinely going to reflect the political priorities of the European Union today, outside of specific agreements which exist on certain specific aspects. We will have to wait and see. The honourable Members will be very active here. I will be somewhere else, but naturally I will be following the debates in question extremely closely.
It has been pointed out that certain issues remain outstanding, naturally, as well as issues that have been mentioned which are even more ambitious. Well, this is possible. Although it is not my job to say so and President Prodi will say it to this House, I believe that the overall achievement of this Commission has been really positive.
There naturally remains work to be done during next year, and that is just as well because otherwise our successors would be out of work and that is in nobody’s interest. And anyway things can always be improved."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples