Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-14-Speech-2-208"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061114.36.2-208"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would firstly thank the honourable Members for their comments. Members do confirm that this is a more political programme, as recognised by Mrs Grossetête, whom I thank for her general support for the programme. Our objective is, indeed, to join with the other institutions, notably Parliament, in better targeting the priorities each year and placing them in the context of Europe’s overall efforts.
Regarding the issue of climate change, I want to tell you that, in our view, it is closely linked to the energy question. In this area, we do see the solid outlines of a possible accommodation between the concerns of those who, like yourselves, are more ambitious where the environment is concerned and those who are more ambitious when it comes to competitiveness. The two sets of concerns are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary. Contained therein are extraordinary economic opportunities for the Europe of tomorrow.
In the same way, I think that there is an opportunity to be seized in the area of innovation and, in this connection, I would particularly thank Mr Crowley for his support for the European Institute of Technology, which I think will be Europe’s workshop of the future. More and more, the work that needs to be done is that on combating climate change and on pursuing a coherent energy policy and a Europe that is not only more competitive but that also derives its strength from a sustainable economy marked by solidarity - all of which presupposes, of course, greater investment in innovation.
In conclusion, I shall try to reply to the question put to me by Mrs Koch-Mehrin, who was wondering what was the main theme that drew everything together. At first sight, it is difficult to see the connection between such diverse areas. The common theme resides, however, in the objective of preparing Europeans to confront the age of globalisation; not to submit to it, but to face up to it; and not to see it as the end of Europe but, on the contrary, to have the courage to affirm our values and interests while, at the same time, helping - by means of our beliefs and our values of democracy, freedom and, indeed, solidarity - to shape that very globalisation and the future of the 21st century. Therein lies the common theme linking the areas of energy and climate change to the areas not only of justice and home affairs but also of innovation and education. That is our programme.
Since I cannot reply to all the specific questions, I shall reply at least to those that I think particularly important, beginning with the principle of annuality. This principle is not called into question. Far from it. We are establishing very clearly the 21 strategic initiatives for next year and committing ourselves not to withdraw any of them once they are under way. At the same time, however, we are offering Parliament and the other institutions the opportunity to acquaint themselves, in the course of the next six months, with what we are including in our programme and the opportunity to draw their conclusions in advance if the work is complete.
This is a good example of the combination of flexibility and security. Secure in the knowledge of what may be done in the course of next year, you have increased flexibility which, in turn, means that Parliament can do a better job of setting out its programme. That is what we aim to achieve, and I also hope that it is in keeping with what you need in terms of your work.
Mr Schulz recognised a number of features from other programmes. True, there is a degree of continuity. We want to maintain an element of coherence. The work done by the Commission and by the other European institutions cannot consist in re-inventing the wheel each year. One of my country’s great thinkers said that in speaking the truth, one cannot be original every day. There is some truth in that. We are sticking to these objectives. We need to keep the pressure up and show great determination. The achievement of a large portion of these objectives does not depend simply on the Commission and Parliament. It also depends on the Member States. That is why we must continue to be coherent over time, and to be so in the interests of a Europe that is not only more competitive but also characterised by greater solidarity and by greater resolve on the world stage. In the light of this, there is indeed an element of continuity, which is also to be found in the motto ‘Unity in diversity’, referred to by Mr Jonckheer and other Members.
To reply specifically to Mr Schulz’s question, I would say, as I have already done to Mr Orban, that my idea is for the Commissioner appointed by Romania to assume responsibility not only for multilingualism but also for interculturalism in Europe, so supplementing the work done, under my direction, by the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA), which organises meetings on this subject. It is also what Commissioner Figel' does on the subjects of education and culture.
As soon as his appointment has been confirmed by the institutions, Mr Orban will therefore be given responsibility for multilingualism, which is a very important subject for Europe. It is by no means a ‘second class’ portfolio. When you think how many languages are used in the EU, a policy not only on multilingualism but also on interculturalism seems to be more and more necessary if we really want to respect the diversity of the EU. Dialogue between the various cultures needs to be established, and efforts made to integrate the different communities, without of course neglecting the minority communities within the EU.
I believe, therefore, that it is a highly important portfolio that will be entrusted to Mr Orban as soon as his candidacy has been approved.
As for the question put by Mrs Koch-Mehrin, I accept, above all, the point on which we most agree, namely the need to go all out for less bureaucracy and more efficiency. This is not a mere statement of intent. At the meeting of the College that took place this very day, the Commission approved a reduction in the obligations imposed on small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe to supply statistics. Instead of asking them all to make the presentations designed for statistical purposes, we shall ask for information on a sampling basis and confine ourselves to requiring only a portion of the information otherwise available. I believe that this is a practical measure to reduce the administrative burden on our companies, and particularly on small and medium-sized companies.
We shall, of course, study the proposals for combating climate change presented, in the person of Mr Jonckheer, by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. Be assured that we want very much to continue to be a world leader on this issue, and we in the European Commission have, in particular, committed ourselves to strengthening the emissions trading system, to attaching more importance to renewable sources of energy and to working to achieve better levels of energy efficiency. Perhaps there will be a number of differences in terms of practical objectives, but I believe that there is a convergence of views between our institutions about the point of the actions to be taken and the ambition behind them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples