Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-05-Speech-3-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060705.2.3-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I kept diplomatically quiet on the subject of football. Our task, however, that of the Council, Parliament and the Commission, is to ensure that the world’s four – or preferably 25 – best are European: that is our common responsibility.
We also have the right to express our views on it and we do so with reference to our own constitution and the consideration of matters and ratification procedures which it establishes.
Mr Crowley made special mention of new sources of energy, and I fully agree with what he said in his speech.
Mr Farage said that a common asylum policy in Europe is laughable. It is not. On the contrary, we need a common asylum policy. That is exactly what Europe needs, as with a lot of other things which are vitally necessary in internal and legal affairs.
It is with regard to these very issues that we need an area of freedom and justice. We need common standards and common regulations, and we need common action very much along the same lines. We need both cooperation between our countries and a clear mandate for the European Union.
Mr Paasilinna raised the sensitive question as to whether energy policy is for some in the world a weapon. That question is raised very frequently. Our reply is that energy policy should not be used as a weapon in global policy. On the contrary, the EU line should be that energy policy is a normal part of business. It must be business-based, and should clearly work both ways and give the same rights to all concerned parties. It must be based on long-term, reliable agreements and market prices. This way, when we act we can benefit from one another. The energy policy between the EU and Russia in particular is part of a strategic partnership. Russia needs European technology and the money that we spend as well, and we need Russian energy. This partnership can serve to improve both the EU’s and Russia’s success globally.
Mrs Jäätteenmäki made special mention of transparency and I fully agree with what she said when she remarked that what was most important was public access to documents. We are expecting the Commission to produce a document to debate on the review of a Community Regulation on transparency, and, during our Presidency, we will submit it as a topic of discussion in the Council.
Furthermore, everything that was said on the issue of climate change in the debate, including what Mrs Hassi said, will be taken into consideration.
Mr Kirkhope stressed the importance of assessing the effects of legislation. This is also a fundamental part of this policy of better regulation. This will be the responsibility of the Commission, the Council and Parliament: all those involved in legislative work. We must consider our legislative work a basis for impact assessments. As I said in my speech, they relate to both the effects on our competitiveness and the environment and the effects on social welfare. This needs to be part of the normal legislative process.
Mr Swoboda’s speech on the issue of Turkey was a wise one. I fully support what Commission President Barroso drew attention to regarding Turkish negotiations in his speech.
I tend to agree with many of your assessments and opinions regarding my speech and my style of presentation. I am perhaps slightly civil servant-like and it may well be that I tend to make lists, but I do not intend to change my style. I know that I will not get away with rhetoric with hardly any of you and I am not even going to try. Nevertheless, this debate has showed that there are such passionate views on many of these European issues that perhaps it is going to take a cool head to reconcile them all. This might be a better solution than strident rhetoric.
Mr Pflüger described Finland as neutral. I must correct him on that: Finland is a member of the EU. We were at one time a politically neutral country, during the time of the Iron Curtain. Now we are a member of the Union, part of this community of values, which has a common policy and, moreover, a common foreign policy.
He criticised the fact that we are leading the Union into military ventures and mentioned, by way of example, the operation we have begun in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That is all about ensuring that there are democratic elections. That is just the sort of task that the Union should be engaged in. It gives firm support to those basic values which our existence relies on.
Mr Rasmussen mentioned the extraordinary social summit which we are holding and the fact that in choosing between flexibility and security the people need to feel that they have security. This will be an exacting task when we are introducing reforms. In responding to the challenge of globalisation we need to be able to make reforms in such a way that we also lead the world in terms of the economy and employment, but that has to happen in such a way that the people too can have confidence in it. In this respect, the social partners have an especially important role to play. At that summit we mean to speak a little about the model of consensus which Finland, for its own part, has used with some success to achieve certain kinds of results.
Finally in this regard, I will address Mrs Estrela’s question on equality. The introduction of a regulation on the founding of a Gender Equality Institute is now being considered. Hopefully we will achieve a result there. Similarly, during our Presidency we will focus attention on such issues as the trafficking of, and violence against, women.
Mr Buzek mentioned what in fact is the most important of the Finnish Presidency’s priorities: innovation policy. The Seventh Framework Programme is an important component of that. The EIT is an important initiative and a suitable structure needs to be found for it. In general, however, during this six-month term you will be hearing the phrase innovation policy over and over again. That is the message we want to drum home in the Union. Moreover, if there is something I hope the Finnish Presidency will be remembered for, it will be that we never stopped talking about innovation policy and how important it is. In fact, Mr Buzek gave a very graphic description of the sort of elements innovation policy should embrace.
Then, regarding Mr Brok’s speech on the importance of the Baltic region, I have to remind you that it is now a common sea. I was happy to note what you had to say, and we intend to keep the issue of the Baltic a current one. The progress we are making on the Northern Dimension is enough to provide us with the tools we need to improve the situation regarding the Baltic too.
To Mr Hökmark of Sweden I can only say that for 700 years we were the same country as Sweden, and in a few years’ time we will be celebrating the fact that we went our separate ways. Now for the last 11 years, on the other hand, we have been part of the same community within the framework of the Union and we enjoy a very close partnership.
I would like to end with a comment on Mr Millán Mon’s speeches on the situation in the Canary Islands. Hopefully there is something symbolic about the fact that Finland, the northernmost country in the Union, has wanted even to send a border patrol and a surveillance aircraft to the Canary islands to help and demonstrate solidarity, and show that the problems that we have in different parts of Europe, even with regard to illegal immigration, are shared by all of us. We need to show solidarity within the Union. These are issues which we all have in common. I would also like the Finnish Presidency to act in such a spirit in the Union over the next six months.
Thank you, Mr President, for the opportunity to speak here in Parliament, and I hope that we will enjoy the most fruitful cooperation with Parliament, its committees and its political groups over the next six months.
In this I have received very much good advice and guidance. I cannot now comment on all your speeches. I would like to start, however, with Mr Titley’s speech, as he is a sort of godfather to us. Some time ago, he drafted a report on the Finnish Presidency and was the first Member of the European Parliament whose acquaintance I briefly made when we were on the same committee jointly set up by the Finnish
and the European Parliament. He gave me some good advice: action, action, and action. That will also hopefully describe the Finnish Presidency.
Mr Poettering made the apt comment that the presidencies form a six-month chain. It is therefore also natural that the same issues that you have heard many times will appear on the Finnish Presidency’s agenda. If I remember, one of you grumbled about this. This chain is necessary. You sit in the European Parliament for five years. The Commission sits for five years. There is a natural long-term aspect to all this among you. For the Council, the long-term aspect has to be established through mutual cooperation between the presidencies, because we need continuity. We have to devote our energies to that.
We need the involvement of everyone in next spring’s 50-year anniversary festivities and declaration, and I have welcomed those ideas that have been put forward here in this part-session. I agree with Mr Schulz’s powerfully expressed view that the Union needs those tools which we can use to respond to all the challenges that are important to us. To his comments on the need for enlargement and a new treaty I reply that there is not the slightest conflict of opinion between Commission President Barroso and myself. As it is, we have the mechanisms for enlargement, but everyone knows that common sense says that we also need a new treaty, at least in the longer term. Thank you to Mr Schulz and Mr Watson for your support and for the firm but healthy pressure you exerted in order that we should achieve progress in decision-making under the third pillar.
Mr Cohn-Bendit made the criticism that I did not raise the issue of legal immigration. It occupies a position of importance in our programme and I mentioned it. I mentioned it in connection with factors relating to Europe’s success. We also need legal immigration for Europe to succeed. It is one path towards European success in global competition in the future.
Mr Seppänen criticised Finland’s aim to ratify the Constitution, saying that we do not respect the results of the French and Dutch referendums. We certainly do, but we also respect Finland’s right to adopt a position itself on the negotiated Treaty, that broad-based compromise which was at one time reached."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples