Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-26-Speech-1-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050926.11.1-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, we must offer a very warm welcome today to the observers from Bulgaria and Romania, who are already seated in our Parliament.
Also a year ago, I told you that I was determined to resolve the complex and sensitive issue of the Statute of Members. You will remember that everybody agreed that this was a priority, and I was very eager to try to find a solution to it. Well, today we can say: mission accomplished.
Thanks to the invaluable contribution of the Luxembourg Presidency, in July the Council expressed its agreement with the text approved by Parliament, which I will sign next Wednesday. This agreement is very important to our institution, since the absence of such an agreement had been poisoning our public image for a long time.
I would now like to point out to you that, with regard to our operational rules, we must set two objectives: the rules relating to parliamentary assistants and the reform of the financial regulation so that the Union can manage its resources more efficiently. There is broad consensus in this regard. Without prejudice to good management, the Union needs a financial regulation that enables it to operate more efficiently.
We already have a draft that the Commission has communicated to us. I propose that we set the objective that this new financial regulation should enter into force together with the 2007 budget.
A year ago too, we were preparing for the investiture of the new Commission and you will recall that that was a turbulent period. I believe we can say today, however, that the European Parliament has gained in maturity, legitimacy, credibility and public visibility, and also that our cooperation with the Commission rests upon solid foundations.
Following that rocky investiture, we negotiated a framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission. That agreement enables us to make considerable progress in the field of information and democratic control. I am pleased about that too. In application of the agreement, the Conference of Presidents will receive Mr Barroso in two days’ time to hear about the proposals that the Commission has announced for this year directly from him.
A year ago too the tragic fate of the Beslan hostages overshadowed our plenary session. At that time I insisted on the need to push ahead with the European area of security and justice, by actively promoting an anti-terrorist strategy. A year on, however, and the barbarism of the terrorists is continuing. London has been the latest victim on European soil, but Iraq is a victim every day.
Today the terrorist threat is greater and it will not disappear for the time being. It will test European society’s capacity to tackle it while respecting our democratic values. The balance between freedom and security will therefore be a permanent element in our debate. It was during the last part-session, when we heard Minister Clarke, and it will continue to be so in the future.
Furthermore, we are all aware that terrorism blurs the distinction between internal affairs and external policy and that today, whether we like it or not, it appears to be directly related to immigration problems. We must therefore combat terrorism together with our neighbours and partners in the Islamic world, in particular in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to pause here for a moment to tell you that one of the great issues for the future of the European Union is its relationship with the Muslim world. Perhaps the most important issue. I propose that we make use of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, which is now being chaired by the European Parliament, to develop this relationship in a positive manner, preventing the terrorist threat and the tensions created by immigration from leading to the Islamophobia that the terrorists would see as their greatest success.
Their presence reminds us that, in May of last year, the fifth enlargement of the European Union was left incomplete while we waited for Romania and Bulgaria to complete their accession processes.
A year ago I also spoke to you about two issues that were fundamental at that time and which today are even more important. I am referring, as you know, to the Constitutional Treaty and the financial perspective. In both cases, Parliament has done what we proposed doing.
With regard to the Constitutional Treaty, we hosted a great debate that ended with majority support for the Treaty. Thirteen countries have ratified it, but the French and Dutch noes have led the Council, as you know, to establish a period of reflection, to which I will refer in a moment.
With regard to the financial perspective, we have been able to draw up an ambitious and reasonable report by means of an ad hoc committee that enabled us to coordinate all the relevant points of view. As a result, our Parliament has a position of its own on the basis of which it can analyse those of the other institutions. We know what we want and we have said it. With regard to our position, we must assess those of the Commission, which we also know, and those of the Council, which we are awaiting, because the Council has not been able to reach an agreement. I very much fear that that was not due to the problems of the Constitution, but to a worrying lack of Community spirit and an increasing devaluation of the idea of European solidarity.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have come this far by following this path. What more must we do from now on and how must we do it?
In my view, the most urgent and most important thing – at least the most urgent – is the financial perspective. It would be good to remember that an agreement in the Council is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition if the Union is to have this multi-annual financial framework.
I have said this to members of the Council on several occasions: an agreement amongst you will be of no use unless it is acceptable to Parliament, because this is an interinstitutional agreement which involves the three Institutions.
I would take this opportunity to urge the Council to do its duty and to reach an agreement during the UK Presidency, because afterwards it will be too late, or much more complicated.
From the brilliant speech with which it began its term in office, it appeared that the UK Presidency had ideas for achieving an agreement on a better structure for Community spending. The European Parliament would point out that it is urgent to turn these ideas into reality.
In the meantime, we must continue to work on the legislative programmes. I am aware that drawing up these programmes without knowing what resources are allocated to each spending programme complicates our work, but it does not make it impossible. I must inform you that the Commission and the Council have insisted that we continue to work on these legislative programmes, because they are essential to the implementation of the 2007 budget. Over the coming days, the Conference of Presidents will have to decide how to do it and call upon the competent committees to act in a coordinated fashion in accordance with their guidelines.
Ladies and gentlemen – if I may speak more formally for a moment, while the British Prime Minister is here, and I thank him for his dedication to Parliament – the Union needs the financial perspective for 2007-2013. However, something that it needs even more than that, something that is essential to the Union, is a budget that can be implemented from 1 January 2007. Not to have one would be a serious problem.
It is also good to remember that our Parliament gave its assent to the Treaty of Accession with these countries, which is being ratified by the Member States, and I believe that we are all now expecting their accession actually to take place on the scheduled date, 1 January 2007. I am sure that we will all make every effort, that we will all do everything in our power, including Romania and Bulgaria, to make sure that this becomes a reality.
From now on, therefore, we must anticipate the possibility that we may have to begin to draw up the 2007 annual budget before there is an agreement on the financial perspective. That possibility exists. From now on I would like to assure you that Parliament will do its duty, as laid down in the Treaties, in order to guarantee that, with or without a financial perspective, the Union has a budget that can be implemented for 2007.
It would be a novel situation, but if it arose we should face it in our proper democratic fashion. Then we have the other great fundamental issue: the future of the Union and its relationship with the Constitutional Treaty.
As you know, the Council has agreed to a period of reflection until next spring; and that is what it is, a period of reflection. It is not a pause, a word which you will note does not appear anywhere in the Council’s conclusions. It did, but it is not in the final conclusions. In fact, other countries have continued their ratification processes since that Council, including, by referendum, Luxembourg.
It is clear, however, that, while we reflect, for some time we are going to carry on working with what we have: the Treaty of Nice. There is no crisis of day-to-day operation. There is no legal vacuum. That is an obvious thing to say, but in politics it sometimes makes sense to state the obvious. There is good reason for pointing this out because I am going on to say that the future problems that the Constitutional Treaty was intended to resolve remain. Those problems are still there.
Resolving the Union’s institutional problems is not a merely cosmetic issue. We need institutions that are appropriately designed so that they operate effectively.
Everybody can now see that there was, and there remains, no plan B as an alternative to the Constitutional Treaty. There is no plan B, but amongst all of us we have coined a plan D: ‘D’ for democracy and debate. It is precisely democracy and debate that define the essence of a Parliament.
This Parliament, therefore, in which the last great democratic debate on the Union took place with speeches by Mr Juncker and Mr Blair, this Parliament which witnessed that great moment of parliamentary democracy, must continue in this direction and – why not? – urge the Heads of State or Government of the countries in which the results of the referenda were particularly significant to continue that debate which was started so brilliantly.
Furthermore, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is in the process of drawing up a report on this period of reflection and will subsequently present its proposals to us.
Ladies and gentlemen, you will remember that a year ago I believed that the ratifications were going to be a decisive time for talking to the Europeans about Europe. A great opportunity to talk to the Europeans about Europe, I said, but the truth is that I never thought that it would be
an opportunity to talk to the Europeans about Europe.
After what has happened, we must promote a great conversation amongst Europeans throughout Europe, a decentralised conversation of course, in cooperation with the national Parliaments of course, but also involving the views of the whole of civil society. We have enough time. Let us do it, perhaps less passionately than during the referendum campaigns, but with more and better information.
I would like to say today to our new colleagues that we eagerly await their contributions to our debates, and we wish them every success in their parliamentary work.
I have just received a letter from President Barroso, and I have held working meetings with the Vice-President, who is here at the moment, in which he proposes that we work together in this field. We are going to do so, of course, both with the Commission and with the Council, because we are all convinced that the Europe we are going to construct will be neither technocratic nor bureaucratic and Parliament must therefore fully demonstrate its
.
Please allow me now to return to our legislative work. I believe that our results are positive. We must, however, place more emphasis on the added value that Europe offers the Europeans and we will have the opportunity to do so when we debate the REACH Directive – the type of directive, incidentally, that the Commission says it will never again send – and the directives on services, working time, air safety and railways.
Then there are security and justice matters, and also Turkey, because a year ago we proposed giving our opinion on Turkey. We did so.
Our position had a definite political impact. This Wednesday we will once again study the situation on the eve of the start of the negotiations. We are undoubtedly at an historic moment, and Parliament will have to give its opinion on the Protocol to the EU-Turkey Association Agreement, which has led to the problems of which we are all aware and which the UK Presidency is working to resolve.
Ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament has an essential role to play in terms of defining the balance between liberty and security in the fight against terrorism. If Europe has to have an anti-terrorist policy that redefines the relationship between freedom and security, this Parliament must be fully involved.
That was laid down in the Constitutional Treaty, with significant advances in terms of our Parliament’s role in this field. Without a Constitutional Treaty, however, it is a positive sign that at the last informal Council of Home Affairs Ministers, the Council and the Commission agreed that Parliament should participate fully in the definition of this balance. If that is the case, and I hope that it is, I believe that it would be an excellent demonstration of cooperation amongst the three Institutions and the best way to define an anti-terrorist policy that is fully accepted by European society.
I would like finally to refer to the issue of quality and the relevance of European legislation. What legislation we produce, its quality, the issues it deals with, its relevance, how good it is: ‘better regulation’ is a fashionable issue. It is not a new issue: every Commission states that it wants to simplify the
. I believe that this is the third time, at least, that a Commission has said that that is what is going to happen.
As far as the present situation is concerned, the President of the Commission has recently stated that he intends to withdraw several dozen legislative proposals. From a procedural point of view, I have reminded the Commission of its obligation, according to our Framework Agreement, to inform Parliament before withdrawing those proposals and to do so without treating this obligation to inform merely as a meaningless formality. We do not yet know which texts they are – I am sure that President Barroso will tell us – but I must point out right now that, depending on the stage they are at in their passage through the Council and Parliament, their withdrawal could raise legal problems, which Parliament would like to resolve in a positive fashion. That is what I have to say with regard to procedure.
With regard to content, it is true that the European Union sometimes deals with many issues in great detail. As well as trying not to legislate in excessive detail, however, it would also be good to consider the question of whether the European building is not lacking certain main beams that are needed to ensure the solidity of the whole structure. There is no question that measures are needed to simplify legislation, to assess its impact and to analyse how texts are transposed. I am told, for example, that there are currently 56 directives regulating the labelling of products. If it is true that there are 56 directives regulating the labelling of products in Europe, then that batch of legislation should be consolidated.
In that respect, the UK Presidency has called an extraordinary Summit for the end of October, at which I will have the honour of representing our Institution, whose participation has been increasing, and I believe that that is something we should be pleased about.
Nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, the arrival of our Bulgarian and Romanian colleagues comes at a particularly difficult time for the European Union. On a day-to-day level, the institutions are functioning normally, nothing out of the ordinary is happening in the Union’s everyday life; but the European project is suffering an identity crisis which we cannot ignore.
We do not yet know the agenda for that Summit, but there is no doubt that the issue of the famous European social model will be one of the main issues being debated. That social model, which for some people does not exist and for others takes many forms, is a priority issue for our debate, because it represents no less than the debate on European society’s response to economic globalisation. This is absolutely fundamental to the future of our society.
The work of our committees will be very important for that, as will the debate that we will hold in plenary in the presence of the British Prime Minister, who will come here to hold a debate with Parliament on the eve of the Summit.
Furthermore, I must tell you that throughout all my journeys this year I have noticed that the Union’s foreign policy has ceased to be exclusively the domain of the governments; that on all my trips to non-EU countries I have noted that parliamentary diplomacy is increasing in maturity and responsibility, in particular thanks to the excellent cooperation with the Council and the Commission. I must also tell you that everywhere I go I am told that Europe is needed and I often hear the complaint that its presence is insufficient. Perhaps non-Europeans feel the need for Europe more than we do ourselves.
Ladies and gentlemen, when analysing the democracy that was emerging in the United States, a democracy like the one we intend to create, a supranational democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville said that nations, like men, only reach a greater destiny through dialogue and political debate. I would like to urge you to bring this spirit alive in the debate on the future of Europe, in our respective States and in the European Institutions.
According to some people whom we have heard over recent days, the European Union could do without a vision of its future, and it would be sufficient for the Union simply to improve the functioning of its markets and to carry on enlarging. For some people, that would be sufficient. I believe, however, that the problem is more profound. The problem relates to the political meaning of the European project and its geographical dimension. Today, both aspects, the political meaning and the geographical dimension, are faced with deadlock and the European Parliament must make an enormous effort in order to help resolve it. Our Institution must contribute in every possible way to resolving this situation.
Ladies and gentlemen, a little more than a year ago I explained to you the priorities for our parliamentary work. Believe me, it would have been difficult for us to imagine back then, in September of last year, what our current circumstances would be. It would have been difficult to imagine the situation we are in today. I therefore believe that we should review what has happened this year and reconsider our objectives for the parliamentary year ahead of us.
Please allow me to ask you collectively which of the things we proposed a year ago have been achieved, and how we are going to approach the parliamentary year now beginning during this critical phase in European integration.
Also a year ago, we were joined by new Members. A year ago we received our fellow Members from the 10 new Member States and at that point we asked ourselves, amidst the joy of reunification, whether we were going to be able to work together, to combine such different parliamentary cultures; whether we were going to be able to rise to the challenge, a challenge unique in the world, of working in twenty different languages, a number which still does not sufficiently reflect the Union’s linguistic diversity. I believe that one year later, an intense year in every respect, we can say that this challenge has been met and that the Union’s enlarged Parliament is operating satisfactorily. I would like to thank everybody for their contribution in this success."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"such"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples