Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-21-Speech-1-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050221.13.1-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will try to reply to some specific questions and then I would like to deal with a more general issue of policy, which I believe to be important in terms of our future work.
The proposals I have put forward in this House are the result of a consensus. The Commission includes Christian Democrats, Socialists and Liberals. The Lisbon Agenda was presented to the Commission by myself and Vice-President Verheugen, who is a member of your political grouping. The programme I have just presented today has been presented by myself and Vice-President Wallström, who is also a member of your political grouping.
We do not want to engage in dogmatism; we want to unite those Europeans who want reforms for Europe, but we do not want to abandon the reforms. If it has been possible for the Commission to take all these decisions unanimously, although there may have been expressed differences; if Christian Democrats, Socialists, Liberals and Independents have reached a consensus, why might we not also achieve that here in the European Parliament and unite around an ambitious programme of reform for this Europe of ours, which takes account of social and environmental concerns? Do not present a caricature of our Commission. That is not fair.
If you look at the list of our objectives, you will find that it contains a series of specific proposals in the social and environmental fields. We are well aware that, today, it is impossible to create growth without an environmental dimension. On the contrary, we believe that the environment contributes to growth and increased competitiveness in Europe. We agree on this point, so please do not see obstacles where there are, in fact, none. What we want is to make it clear that the status quo is no longer an option today, that Europe has serious competitiveness problems when compared to other regions of the world and that we intend to put this right by adapting and renewing our social model. That is why the Commission has a President who wants reform, but also Socialist, Liberal, Christian Democrat and Independent members who all also want this reform to be carried out in a spirit of balance and proportion.
I would therefore like to ask the PSE Group not to set itself up in opposition to the Commission: on the contrary, I would ask it to cooperate, though not in an uncritical way, with us, just as all the other groups do. Mrs Grossetête, who is a member of the largest political grouping in the European Parliament, has also expressed to us certain demands and requirements, and I thank her for that.
I would now like to draw your attention, as fellow Europeans, to the fact that this is not just any moment in the history of Europe. Yesterday, we learned the result of the referendum in Spain, and we are delighted about this, but we shall also have a referendum in France. We shall have a referendum in the United Kingdom; I talked about it today with Prime Minister Blair in London. What do you believe Europeans expect now? They want the institutions to work together; they do not have a very good understanding of the fine details of the debate or of the policies of the political groups. They want to know whether the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council are working along the same lines and whether or not they are genuinely concerned about their problems.
I believe it would be highly inappropriate, at a time like this when very important referendums are taking place, for people to look at Europe and see, on the one hand, the Commission and, on the other, a number of large groups such as your great European Socialist grouping, and thus to be presented with an image of division. I have already addressed this very sincere appeal to some of you personally and I would like to repeat it. We should not abandon our ideas, of course, since we are all very attached to them, but it is possible to look beyond these ideas and reach a dynamic consensus in favour of the reforms Europe needs. I believe that this is genuinely possible.
The last issue relates to the criticism you expressed, Mr Schultz, of the statement I made about my country. As, moreover, you acknowledged, I did not, where this matter was concerned, fail to honour any obligation, because the Commission's code of conduct clearly allows Commissioners to be active members of political parties and unions. There was therefore no failure to honour obligations. All I did was express my solidarity with the party of which I was President for several years. What would have been a real political event in my country is if I had kept quiet! I would therefore thank you for not putting the question in the form of an attack against me personally for the position I took, because it was perfectly permissible for me to take that position.
You raised the possibility of the code of conduct’s being revised in terms of the interinstitutional agreement. I would very much like to say that I am completely opposed to this idea, since our code of conduct stipulates that the members of the Commission may participate in an election campaign if they request authorisation to do so from the President of the Commission. The question you raised is therefore about what happens in the case of the President of the Commission. I must state that if the President of the Commission has the power to decide whether or not Commissioners can participate, then he also has that power in relation to himself. This is clearly laid down in the Treaty, Article 217 of which states, and I shall read it in English:
With regard to the specific issues, first of all, Mr Duff, you told me that you had not properly understood, or not appreciated, a comment apparently attributed to me concerning naïve federalism. I would very much like to clarify what I said, because it may not have been clear in the context. When I criticise naïve federalism, it is not in fact federalism itself that I am criticising; quite the opposite. I have great respect for all the federalists, all the men and women who founded our great European project. I still believe, moreover, that the federal method is essential to this Europe of ours. Furthermore, the community method, or at least the method we generally describe as such, is a kind of federal method. So, in reality, I criticised naïve federalism as contrasted with what I might consider to be a more sophisticated and more intelligent form of federalism, that is to say, an approach that does not seek to build our European Union – an increasingly close union between all Europeans, at the expense of the legitimacy of the democratic states. Our countries are, in fact, democratic states with democratic governments and democratic parliaments. I have had the honour of working in Geneva with a great federalist, Denis de Rougemont, who sometimes blamed the state for all evils, as if the state were not also a democratic institution. I am in favour of an increasingly strong Union, but that strengthening should not jeopardise the legitimacy of the democratic states. I very much wish to offer that clarification because I have heard criticisms of my comment, which gave a distorted view of my thoughts and feelings on the subject of Europe.
The members of the Commission shall carry out duties devolved upon them by the President under his authority.
The Treaty therefore clearly establishes the principle of the President's political leadership of the College and the principle of the President's authority. So to accept, by means of an interinstitutional agreement, a reduction in the authority of the President would be contrary to the Treaty as it stands, and to weaken the President of the Commission's authority would mean weakening the authority of the Commission itself.
We need a strong Commission. That is why I believe that your proposal is not a good one. I would draw the attention of all the political families to the fact that we, the European Parliament and the Commission, must strengthen each other on a mutual basis. We are the European institutions
. We can do extraordinary things together, and we must therefore enhance each other’s status. Personally, I try to enhance the status of the European Parliament in all my public statements, and not just in my statements. I would expect you to do the same, since we have great challenges to face together, and together we can win the day. However, we cannot do so by reducing the importance of the Commission and by asking the Commissioners to be civil servants. Instead, we must ask them to assume their political responsibilities, to exercise their citizenship and to express their preferences, always while working in a European spirit of course. As a citizen, I have the right to express my point of view about my own country. I have the right, like all European citizens, to vote in accordance with my opinions.
As President of the Commission, I will not discriminate. In fact, at your request, I received the leader of the opposition, who will become the Prime Minister of my country. I received him a few days before the beginning of the election campaign, because, as President of the Commission, I do not use my post to oppose any particular government and I do not distinguish between governments of the left and of the right. In fact, I believe that the Commission should represent the general European interest.
Having said that, the members of the Commission are political men and women. Perhaps some Members of this House do not like that. As citizens, we have rights, however. We have the right to express ourselves, and that is a fundamental right. That is why I do not accept your criticism in this regard. I would like to point out that we all need strong European institutions. This institution – the Commission – must be strong and must work with a strong Parliament, firmly committed to change and reforms and with the sense of balance that is at the heart of our Europe.
The second issue relates to security and justice. We have talked a lot about the economy, but we must not forget that we have a programme – and a very ambitious one at that – in the field of security and justice – a programme that will be implemented by Vice-President Frattini. That, specifically, was the subject of one of the questions raised. Security, justice and the protection of fundamental rights will be one of the Commission's priorities. We need to offer a practical response to people’s demands in terms of security. That is why, in 2005, we are, in particular, going to present Parliament with the action plan aimed at implementing the strategy adopted in The Hague, in the form of proposals concerning the protection of the victims of organised crime, women and children in particular. I would draw your attention to the fact that this is a new dimension to the action described in our programme: placing more emphasis on the protection of children. We believe – and I also very much want to stress this – that this is a field in which it is possible to strengthen action at European level. Proposals can thus be presented with a view to strengthening mutual recognition and trust between the judicial authorities, and a proposal concerning a European strategy in relation to legal immigration and to the fight against people traffickers can be drawn up. Security, justice and the protection of human rights are a genuine priority, and I would like you to know that the Commission is going to do everything possible to respond to those demands.
Certain Members, including Mr Karas, Mr Kirkhope, and Mr Lehne, and also Mr Goebbels to a certain degree, have raised the issue of how to focus legislation and of whether it should be strengthened or restricted. I am delighted, moreover, that the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council are fully aware of this concern. When I talk about ‘better legislation’, I do not always mean that we need less legislation. In certain cases, precisely because we are a Union, we need a degree of harmonisation or more legislation, sometimes in order to harmonise or simplify the existing legislation. I would, however, like to stress that we do share this concern about the quality of legislation, and we have introduced it into our programme. Throughout all of the action we take, we shall, therefore, be weighing up the factors of cost, proportionality and subsidiarity that we shall be using for the purposes of impact assessment.
This is why – and I say this partly in response to Mr Goebbels – we have of course had to draw up a list of our main objectives. This is an implementation programme for this year. You would no doubt criticise us if I only presented four or five priorities. The political line is one dimension and, in this regard, we are talking about very clear and well-focussed priorities, defined when we presented the strategic objectives. The specific, legislative and implementation programme is another dimension, and one of which you should be aware so that you can monitor our activities, the Commission being answerable to this Parliament.
With regard to another specific question, namely climate change, I would like very much to say to Mrs Beer, who I am sure will put this question to President Bush tomorrow, that one of the subjects on our agenda is the possibility of cooperation with the Americans, partly in a post-Kyoto spirit. That is a sensitive subject. We are aware of the positions taken by the American administration to date, but I believe we should embark upon a dialogue on this issue with the United States of America. I shall probably have the opportunity to raise this issue with the President of the United States.
With regard, now, to the issue of the Directive on Services, I would very much like to say, in response specifically to Mr Swoboda, that I agree with your concerns about services of general interest. I have already said this on many occasions: services of general interest, or certain public services, are part of what might be called the tradition, or organisational culture, of certain states. We are therefore seeking specifically to ensure that these concerns are taken into account, since we believe them to be legitimate.
That is why my Commission has taken the initiative to review certain aspects of the Directive on Services, and I was expecting a word of congratulation from yourselves. It is exactly the opposite that I hear from you when you describe this Commission as neoliberal even though it was not this Commission that presented the directive in question. In fact, we are seeking a balance while maintaining the objective, which is to create a genuine internal market in services, since that is essential to the creation of jobs in Europe. This is an objective we cannot abandon and on which, furthermore, there is consensus until 2010, but it must be pursued in a balanced manner. That is the fundamental political question I would like to put to our friends in the Socialist Party in the European Parliament, and in particular to Mr Schultz, who raised this question.
You must choose: either you want to oppose the Commission or you want to work with it. I have already said that the Commission wants to work in a spirit of cooperation and constructive rapport with Parliament and, in particular, with all those Members who truly want to move Europe forward. This is no neoliberal proposal on our part."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples