Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-22-Speech-3-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060322.11.3-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Unfortunately, I have to leave shortly, as I have an official engagement with the Belgian authorities. I did not expect the sitting to carry on as late as it has, following the first part of proceedings in the Chamber before the beginning of this item on the agenda. Come what may, the Commission will be present until the end of the debate. I will still be able to answer some of the questions.
On the nuclear issue, Mr Swoboda, our position is very clear: we respect the subsidiarity principle. This is a tough question in Europe; there are Member States in favour and others against. The way forward, as far as I am concerned, is not to avoid debate. Mr Swoboda mentioned my meeting with President Putin. I wish to tell you that, despite Russia's wealth of natural oil and gas resources, President Putin has stated that one of Russia’s main priorities in the future is to develop nuclear energy. This is therefore an issue that we cannot avoid; it is an issue that is on the agenda and that must be discussed frankly. The Commission is not taking sides in the nuclear energy debate. What we are promoting is the principle whereby each Member State finds forms of long-term, sustainable energy in its energy ‘mix’, whilst ensuring compliance with the subsidiarity principle.
Mr Duff and others raised the question of the Constitution. This is not what we are discussing here today, but I should like to confirm that the Commission remains devoted to the principles and the values enshrined in the draft Constitutional Treaty, and we are working on this issue. We are thinking of bringing some ideas on the future of the European debate to the June European Council. Hopefully these ideas will make a worthwhile contribution. Although the Constitutional Treaty, as the name suggests, is an intergovernmental Treaty, the Commission is committed to honouring its responsibilities and will thus want to make its own contribution to this period of reflection.
I do not know if it will be a contribution to rival the explorations made by Vasco da Gama in terms of ambition, as suggested by Mr Martin, but in any case it will be our contribution. In any event, I was happy today to hear Montesquieu, Machiavelli and Vasco da Gama mentioned in our debate, which shows that the level of debate in Parliament is moving ever upward.
And now I shall make some comments in English – I always speak in English when I speak about money! I got used to it during the British Presidency. So, now some remarks in English about the financial perspectives.
My understanding is that real progress was made yesterday between the institutions. On the basis of compromise texts presented by the Commission, a third trialogue took place yesterday afternoon with the Austrian Presidency, the negotiating team from Parliament and the Commission. Our understanding is that the outcome of the meeting was largely positive. On the interinstitutional agreement itself, there is almost full agreement, including on the idea of adding a new Part Three on sound financial management.
Subject to final technical verifications, texts have been agreed on important points such as the Financial Regulation, certification by Member States and the review clause. When I say ‘agreed’, I mean agreed between the delegations. They are agreements
. All these points have been considered key elements in various resolutions adopted by Parliament. I am pleased to see that the three institutions have been able to reach consensus on them and I am proud of the contribution that the Commission made to that agreement.
As regards figures, Parliament and the Council have exchanged their views and evaluations based on the ceilings agreed at the December European Council. Let us be frank. There is still a big difference between the figures proposed by Parliament and those proposed by the Council. I want to be clear about this. The Commission supports the most ambitious possible agreement. The question, frankly, is: how far is the Council prepared to go? I therefore appeal for a compromise to be reached as soon as possible. If there is no compromise, it will be negative for all of us in the European Union, in particular for the new Member States and those Member States and regions that really need our solidarity for their development.
The solution could be to find the appropriate mix between three elements: flexibility, ways of mobilising the funds on the various flexibility mechanisms and, finally, the overall ceilings.
There is light at the end of the tunnel! A final trialogue is scheduled for 4 or 5 April 2006 in Strasbourg. It is my firm conviction that an agreement can be reached at that meeting. In the meantime, the Commission will continue to play its active role in seeking the most ambitious position, but, in the end, we need ambition with an agreement. Therefore, I approve of ambition but with realism and responsibility, trying to bring all the institutions on board.
I know that the Austrian Presidency is actively seeking an agreement with all the Member States. Let me tell you that at the various meetings I have had with the Heads of Government – and this week I have had several – I urged them, both publicly and privately, to accept an increase in overall expenditure. I quoted, in particular, the need for education and culture: the Erasmus and citizenship programmes. There, at least, we should make a real effort and some progress is possible. Let us all work hard towards reaching a good agreement and then, if we have good intentions, a good strategy and good policies. Let us hope that we also have good instruments in terms of the financial perspectives.
I should first like to express my gratitude for the comments, which were for the most part in favour of our programme. There is obviously the underlying question of the financial perspective, which I shall discuss in a moment. In general, however, I feel I can say that the Commission's objectives for 2007 have been received positively.
More specifically, Mr Watson asked why we put objectives relating to energy conservation and environmental protection under the heading of solidarity and not that of prosperity. Of course, they could and should come under the heading of prosperity, but we put them under solidarity in order to highlight their enormous importance, given that the term ‘solidarity’ refers to solidarity with future generations. The struggle for a clean environment and for sustainable development is of direct relevance to our future as a whole. This was what led us to put environmental issues under the heading of solidarity, in terms of presentation.
As regards immigration, Mrs Frassoni said that we have never given our opinion on the issue of illegal immigration and the tragedy of the many Africans who die in the Mediterranean. I am sorry, but this is not true. There have been a number of clear Commission positions on this issue, expressed by Mr Frattini, and the truth of the matter is that we are fighting to achieve a joint approach, where possible, among the Member States on these issues.
Mrs Frassoni also asked about the absence of any mention of transport in the context of energy policy. I am sorry, but the Green Paper says that we have proposed the following possible actions to the Member States, and I quote, from page 11 of the English text:
‘a major effort to improve energy efficiency in the transport sector, and in particular to improve rapidly urban public transport in Europe’s major cities’
Of course this is only a Green Paper, for consultation purposes, but that line is there. When it comes to energy efficiency, we feel that the transport sector is crucial. Let no one be in any doubt about this.
One of the honourable Members mentioned the opening up of labour markets in Europe. You know that the Commission is in favour of this. On the back of our report, a number of Member States – not only those mentioned, namely Portugal and Spain, but also Finland and the Dutch Government – have announced their intention to promote the liberalisation of the labour markets in Europe at the earliest opportunity. This is moreover the case in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden. I gather that others are also considering facilitating the free movement of workers in the EU.
Mr Swoboda asked how this can be better explained to our citizens, or, in other words, what we can do to explain Europe’s added value, which is a very important question. This is easier on some issues than others. Today, in fact, we announced a very important measure, the air safety ‘blacklist’, which is the first piece of legislation adopted by this Commission, with the support of Parliament and the Council. This is an issue on which the advantages of Community-level action are abundantly clear to the citizens. On issues such as these, we need to go the extra mile to provide explanations and argue our point of view. This is indeed the Commission’s job, but I should like to add, if I may, that all of us are responsible for doing this: it is also the responsibility of Parliament, the honourable Members, national parliaments, of all those who have Europe’s interests at heart and those who feel the necessity to explain the added value that Europe brings."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples