Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-16-Speech-4-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061116.3.4-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament on the draft report concerning the White Paper on a European communication policy, I should like to say straight away, as Mr Onesta did before me, that I welcome the overdue recognition of communication as a two-way process between the institutions and the people, and no longer as a mere marketing operation. There is still, however, a long way to go to the establishment a European communication system in which European affairs are part and parcel of the public domain at the national level.
What I said in committee I shall repeat here: I regret that the White Paper continues to overrate new technology and to underrate national television services. We know, and Eurobarometer surveys confirm, that the mainstream national channels remain the favourite information source of the EU population. It seems to me that we must act accordingly.
Furthermore, the White Paper remains strangely silent on the subject of financial resources. As we all know, democracy, and hence communication, come at a price. As long as the Union's multiannual budget is lower than the budget of a European advertising agency, little effective progress can be made. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Herrero, of course, and to say to him that the debate on Article 308 is not closed and that Mrs Prets will return to the problem shortly.
Commissioner, it is a sad fact that the Commission only ever talks about communication policy when Europe is in crisis. It is only when things are going badly that the Commission feels the need to communicate. The question that must be put to the Commission concerns the actual content of its communications. People see the Commission as an ultraliberal body with no interest in protecting European citizens from the storm winds of globalisation.
We owe it to our citizens, and to democracy, to provide a better explanation of what happens in Brussels. Most of Europe's citizens are unaware of the achievements that have been made possible by the policies and financial resources of the European Union. What is more, they are too often unaware that every decision in Brussels emanates from the will of the Member States. If electricity, gas, rail transport and now postal services have been liberalised, it is because the Member States wanted them to be liberalised. Without the will of the Member States, these things would not have been done.
In conclusion, I believe that what we need is not so much a code of conduct for the European institutions on communication with the public as a code of conduct for the Commission to ensure that it pursues policies that are more in tune with people's concerns. Lastly, we need a general code of conduct to apply to the Member States so that they assume their responsibilities and put a stop, once and for all, to the practice of ascribing European successes to national policies and national failures to the Community. That would raise Europe's stock."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples