Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-26-Speech-3-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050126.6.3-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I shall begin by clearing up the point raised by Mrs Grossetête. The arrangement between us is that Parliament is the first to be notified of major decisions taken by the Commission. It was in fact today, this morning, that we adopted the five-year strategic programme and the work programme for 2005, and this is why it only arrived here today – it was only today that we adopted it. Parliament therefore received the work programme for 2005 immediately.
I should now like to answer some of the general questions asked during the debate. First is the question of cohesion. If there is one area in which, frankly, you do not need to argue with us, it is that of cohesion. This Commission does not need any convincing in this area; we understand that cohesion is an essential element of the European model. What we now need is your support so that there is practical support, if possible during the Luxembourg Presidency, for the new financial perspectives. Indeed, we have seen a range of priorities today, as we have seen in previous debates, that can only be implemented if the EU has resources that are commensurate with its ambitions. We have spoken in this House about the transport network for Europe, education and culture, which, again, we shall look at in more detail when we present the Lisbon Strategy, because we consider what we refer to as ‘knowledge for growth’ and ‘knowledge for development’ an essential element of this reviewed strategy.
Some of you have also spoken today about cohesion in relation to the weakest regions, those regions that are lagging behind, be they in the new Member States or in the old Member States, be they in the wealthiest countries or in the least-developed countries. The truth is that we must strive to achieve cohesion, because without cohesion there is no solidarity, and without solidarity the very idea of the Union ceases to exist. Consequently, what I ask the Members of this House is that we also do this with our governments – with the governments of the various Member States – to gain support for the concept of solidarity, a concept of genuine cohesion in relation to the least-privileged sections of society and to the regions of our Union that are lagging furthest behind.
Our model is the European model. I trust that there is no doubt about this. The European model is our model. Nonetheless, we are in a world of globalisation and increased competition, and we have many challenges ahead of us. We must therefore learn from what others do without changing our model.
In terms of research into new technologies, for example, we are behind some of our partners. I am not suggesting that we should replace our model with theirs. I am suggesting that Europe should do more in terms of supporting research into new technologies, whilst maintaining and strengthening the component parts of our model.
I was therefore very pleased, Mr President, to see that in this House today there has been virtually no theological debate, in the negative sense of the word, about our priority objectives and that it has been possible for us, over the course of this debate, to move closer to a broad consensus, and to demonstrate that economic dynamism and a liberalised and dynamic internal market are not incompatible with justice and social cohesion. We must work simultaneously on both axes – towards both greater liberalisation of the markets and increased social cohesion.
It is true that if we do achieve the consensus that can be seen here today, this would confirm that we are capable of turning our diversity – and the diversity of opinions in Parliament and in society – into a strength and not a weakness. I am especially pleased to see that a programme that is a programme for change and a partnership that is a partnership for renewal can achieve a broad consensus.
On my first visit to Parliament, I promised you, ladies and gentlemen, that I would work in complicity with Parliament. I said this to you, Mr President, and I said it to all of the political forces. The Commission is demonstrating that it keeps its promises. We have heard your concerns during these debates and we are prepared to work within this relationship of positive complicity with Parliament. I therefore wish to congratulate Parliament. I should also like to say that what I want, and what the entire Commission wants, is to work with you and to ask for your support – along with your criticisms when you feel that there is good reason to criticise the Commission – because with your support we can be sure that we will drive forward our partnership for a renewed Europe over the course of the next five years.
Today’s debate has certainly not taken the place of another possible debate on the work programme for 2005, which will definitely happen. I feel that Parliament wants the Commission to come here as soon as it adopts its work programmes, which is why we are here today, having adopted both the strategic programme and the work programme for 2005 this morning.
We shall certainly be more than happy to attend a further debate with specific regard to the work programme for 2005. The main purpose of coming here today was essentially to set out the strategic guidelines for the next five years. As some of the Members of this House have acknowledged, things have been done differently this time: the Commission has decided not to give you a bureaucratic or technocratic programme containing hundreds of pages. Instead, it has decided to make some choices, to present you with the major strategic guidelines and thus to present you with a clear document.
We have proposed a partnership to you and Parliament has responded favourably to this partnership. We have proposed priorities to you and it has clearly transpired that the issues that concern the Commission are precisely those that concern Parliament. The conditions are therefore now in place for us, along with the Council, to present our fellow citizens with a programme and a strategic perspective for the next five years.
In this respect, I should also like to welcome the presence, for much of this debate, of the President-in-Office of the Council, Prime Minister Juncker. As he encouragingly said, there is broad agreement on how to proceed. The Commission, the Council and, of course, Parliament, with the help and support of the Luxembourg Presidency, will therefore, in the next few weeks, seek to achieve interinstitutional coordination, and thus be in a position to make a joint statement on the strategic objectives.
This means, Mr President, honourable Members, that you can count on the Commission and that, with determination and a sense of responsibility, we can achieve a common project and can consolidate a partnership for a renewed Europe. In so doing, we are pre-empting the spirit of the Constitution. In so doing, we are demonstrating that all three of our institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission – are capable of setting out a clear vision for the future. I should therefore like to thank you most sincerely for your support and for your attention.
Now is clearly the time, however, to translate this strategic programme into practical action. The Members of this House have focused on a point that was also a concern in today’s Commission meeting, and that point is delivery. We wish to concentrate on delivery, on effective implementation, whereby plans do not remain in documents and on paper, but instead the citizens see that something is happening and that we are actually putting those plans into action.
The first step towards such implementation, the first step towards translating this strategic programme into action – which, I note, has received overwhelming support here today – will be the review of the Lisbon Strategy. We shall be in this House next week to present the so-called Lisbon mid-term review, because the aim is to translate our priorities into action, particularly the priority of prosperity, which, in practical terms, means growth and jobs; growth and jobs as priorities. We have always said, however, that there are many elements of the Lisbon Strategy competing to achieve this objective and some of the Members of this House have noted that there may be problems in relation to certain legislative initiatives. I should like to say to you that these issues will be covered when we present the review of the Lisbon Strategy.
You will therefore be able to see that this Commission does what it says and says what it does; that it has the courage to table proposals and the ambition to turn those proposals into action. I should also like to say at this point that I am counting on your support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples