Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-17-Speech-3-246"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041117.9.3-246"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Those are the words of the letter addressed to me by the President of the European Parliament, which was written by the chairman of that committee. The committee also asked me, as did the Conference of Presidents, what guarantees I could give, as President of the Commission, with regard to the mechanisms for preventing conflicts of interest. In fact, we have taken a whole range of measures, too many to list now, but the philosophy is as follows: when a service, and in particular the Director-General responsible for competition, comes across a potential conflict of interests, he has the duty to point it out, but not to examine it, which is important, because the decision is not the responsibility of the Director-General, but rather of the President of the Commission.
That is where the problem lies. I readily accept that there must be more transparency, more demands, but at times I wonder whether certain people, some through naivety, some with other intentions, are not trying to weaken the European institutions, which we want to be strong. We are willing to accept great demands, but it sometimes makes me suspicious to see members of the Commission being subjected to much more stringent demands than national executives. I wonder how many of our national governments would actually be approved if all their members were to be subject to the kind of hearings that you have organised here in this Parliament.
In relation to the composition of the Commission, some people have said that it is too liberal. Let there be no doubt: this composition actually reflects the pluralism within our Member States. If there were Communist governments in our States, I would have Communist Commissioners. If there were governments led by the Greens, I would have Commissioners of that persuasion. I would have no problem with that. It is the governments, which represent the majority in their countries – since, in all of our countries, the rule is the majority – who make the proposals. There is therefore absolutely no justification for criticising the Commission because its composition is too left-wing or too right-wing. The Commission is genuinely the fruit of pluralism and I would like to repeat what I have already said to you, above all to the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and that is that I will not be a partisan President. To respond directly, moreover, to the concerns expressed by Mr Schulz, Mr Swoboda and Mr Rasmussen, I must point out that, while I have a particular ideological political conviction, I nevertheless believe that as President of the Commission, I cannot be a President of the right against the left nor the left against the right. I believe that, at European level, we must first and foremost unite, all of us with pro-European convictions, and work for the common European good.
Please allow me also to say something to the members of the Socialist group, with all the respect due to them: you will very often find that in the field of social cohesion, for example, you will have less difficulty with me in the Commission than you would have with certain Socialist governments currently in power. We will see this when we discuss the Financial Perspectives; we will see then who really defends social cohesion and who defends a more active policy of redistribution.
We often say that we must defend the European social model, and that is true. Did you know, however, that, in many Member States, particularly those that have just joined, there is no European social model yet, and therefore their problem is not how to preserve the European social model? Their problem is how to achieve the European social model. We must therefore work to make this enlargement a success and that is the direction we must work in.
With regard to the issue of cooperation between the Commission and Parliament, I do not wish to anticipate the result of the vote on your resolutions tomorrow. Since some of you, however, have put the question to me directly, in particular Mr Watson, I should like to say, with regard to the motion for a resolution presented by Mr Poettering, Mr de Vigo, Mr Duff, Mr Schulz, Mr Swoboda, Mr Crowley and others, that point 5(a), in its current form, is perfectly acceptable. The principle is as follows: if Parliament decides, through a vote, to withdraw its confidence from a Commissioner, the President of the Commission must seriously examine whether it is appropriate to ask that member to resign; the President then either asks that member to resign, or must justify to Parliament why he is not doing so. That is the meaning of the text presented to me and I believe that is the commitment my predecessor, Mr Prodi, had made; I feel no need to change anything.
The important issue is how to reconcile the principle of individual responsibility with the collegiate nature of the Commission. This balance is not easy to achieve, since, as you are well aware, the collegiate nature of the Commission is laid down in the Treaties, it has the force of the law. I cannot, therefore, accept going against the Treaties; I cannot accept the idea that a Commission should resign automatically in the event that you withdraw your confidence, because that is not laid down in the Treaties, and nor is it in accordance with either the spirit or the letter of the Treaty, and, as President of the Commission, I should be the principal guardian of the Treaties.
The Treaties establish the principle of collegiality, which does not mean that, on a political level, I am not perfectly willing to examine the concerns that you express with regard to a member of the Commission extremely carefully and to justify my decision. Furthermore, I have asked the Commissioners to accept the principle of resignation in the event that the President requests it, and they have done so.
Naturally, the President of the Commission cannot keep abreast of the hundreds and thousands of competition issues the Commission has to deal with. The Director-General, who is assisted in this task by the Commission’s legal services, therefore has a duty to provide warnings. It is then the President of the Commission - who, as you know, in accordance with the Treaty, is responsible for the coherence and continuity of the Commission - who takes the decision, if he thinks there is a potential conflict of interests, to transfer that portfolio to another Commissioner, or to take that decision himself within the college. There is, therefore, a mechanism.
I believe that in today's Europe of 25, the authority of the President, which was increased further by the Treaty of Nice and which is still in force, has become essential in terms of the Member States as well. That is why, at informal meetings, the Members of the Commission have accepted the principle that they should resign if their President requests that they do so. So in certain respects we are going further than what you are asking. What I cannot do is change the balance between the institutions established by the Treaty.
I believe that tomorrow we will have the opportunity to react and to make statements following your vote. I could go into greater detail on this, if you wish. I can tell you, however, that from now on the Vice-President, Mrs Wallström, and I, will be ready to work with you on the renewal of the framework agreement, taking account in particular of the letter sent to me by Mr Borrell and also certain initiatives, in particular that of Mr Poettering, who has set several important milestones in the institutional debate. So I see here a genuine will for constructive openness with Parliament.
I shall end by referring to the issue of transatlantic relations, which has been raised. In this regard, I believe we must work with the United States of America on an equal and dignified footing, in a spirit of mutual respect. We need it more than ever and the whole world needs that cooperation.
Today you have received the President of South Africa here. I met him yesterday and he told me, as all the leaders of the developing world tell me, that closer cooperation between Europe, which is currently the biggest economic and commercial power, and the United States, is very important to them as well and that we must commit ourselves positively to a progressive transatlantic agenda with the United States. That is what I will do, of course, while defending the European common interest, it goes without saying.
I will end by saying that the debates this week have enriched us all. I reject the idea that there is a winner and a loser here. I believe that the European institutions can strengthen each other mutually and that we can all emerge as winners from this constructive debate. I would repeat to you my wish, and that of the whole of the Commission, to cooperate closely with you and to establish a positive agenda for Europe, because we have a great deal to do. This idea of positive complicity with Parliament will be very important over the next five years. They will be difficult years. We are facing increasing numbers of demands, but we can work together, the European Parliament and the European Commission, without any party-political pettiness, without pointless divisions, above all trying to unite all of those who believe that Europe has a future and who believe that we can inspire our young people to support Europe. On this basis, I can guarantee that I am willing to cooperate closely within the context of a constructive and transparent relationship with your institution.
Having said that, certain comments have been made. Mrs Frassoni has mentioned three cases currently under examination, which could involve the anti-trust effort and which could involve conflicts of interest. I accept that, Mrs Frassoni, but they are just three cases out of 561 of the same type which are currently being examined by the Commission, of a total of more than a thousand cases relating either to mergers or to State aid. So there are cases that could clearly lead to conflicts of interest. We have transparent mechanisms, however, for preventing these conflicts of interest from having any real effect. This mechanism is democratic because the college has responsibility, and it falls to the President of the Commission.
Furthermore, some of you have made comments to the effect that a Commissioner from the Italian Government should not be made responsible for justice, simply on the basis that he is Italian or is a member of the Italian Government. I must tell you that that is something I could not accept, on the basis of the principle of non-discrimination. This responsibility depends first and foremost on the person, on the individual. The notion that a person from a particular country or from a particular government cannot, as a result of that, offer a particular degree of responsibility, when they have the necessary political, intellectual and professional qualities, is not acceptable. The Member States are democratic countries. It is not for us, the Commission, to decide which governments are acceptable and which are not. That is not our responsibility. It is up to the electorates of the different countries to decide that.
The same goes for another Commissioner, that is, the Commissioner nominated by the Hungarian Government. The Hungarian Government is a democratic government. If it were not, I do not believe it would be a Member of the European Union. To say that somebody nominated by a democratic government of our Union, furthermore somebody who has until now been President of the majority party in that democratic country cannot, as a result of that, for a purely political reason, be appointed a member of the Commission, seems to me to be unacceptable. That is why I believe we should try to keep that Commissioner.
There are clearly compromises to be reached here, ladies and gentlemen. As somebody quite rightly said, there are twenty-five members of the Commission. I would put the question to you: in each of your States, when your party is in power, are all the members of your national governments subject to your approval? I believe not. Why demand more of the European institutions, therefore, than you demand of your own national institutions?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples