Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-15-Speech-1-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070115.9.1-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, having welcomed our fellow Members from Bulgaria and Romania, I would like to take a few minutes to assess the work that we have done during the first half of this term in office.
You will also remember that, at the beginning of the term in office, I told you that the Members’ Statute would be a priority. Some of the most experienced Members were rather sceptical, but we now have a Statute that, when it is applied, will guarantee equal treatment amongst Members and transparency in their expenses. It had been a difficult issue that seriously tarnished the European Parliament’s image and I believe that we are all very pleased that it has been resolved.
To enable us to operate with more Members, we have had to carry out significant internal reforms. More programming, more selectiveness, more political orientation for debates, quicker position-taking in response to international events and in response to the Commission’s decisions and proposals, more efficiency in our delegations in third countries, more dynamic work by our parliamentary committees.
Everybody has contributed in some way to finding and applying original and effective solutions. Thank you to everybody, particularly the Presidents of the political groups, the Vice-Presidents and managers who have worked with me in the Bureau and the committee chairmen. Furthermore, if you will allow me to do so now, I would like to say a very special thanks to the Secretary-General, Mr Priestly, who will be leaving us shortly.
Please believe me – and know this as a result of holding this post – that he, Julian, and his fellow workers are the real architects of the day-to-day miracle that keeps this complex institution operating.
In order to make it operate, we have also had to implement a significant real estate policy, which has always caused controversy. We have invested heavily in building work in Brussels and Luxembourg, which my successor will have the pleasure of inaugurating in the near future.
We have acquired buildings in the three cities housing our working headquarters and in the twenty-seven countries in which we have information offices. We are a great power in terms of real estate throughout Europe, and I can tell you that this policy is going to enable us to save EUR 100 million per year compared to a policy of renting, and that will make it possible for us to apply the Members' Statute without having to ask for additional resources from the European taxpayer.
I would like to thank the Vice-President, Mr Onesta, and the Secretary-General’s team for the work they have done in this area.
You will also remember that, since July 2004, we have been facing the issue of our relations with the other Institutions.
I believe that there is a broad consensus with regard to the increasing importance of the European Parliament and the greater role it is playing. The duties carried out by the European Parliament are now better known and more recognised. We have overcome the challenge of enlargement and solved significant internal problems.
Today, everybody acknowledges that it was at the turbulent time of the Commission’s investiture that the European Parliament reached its political maturity.
Why? Simply because it exercised its powers and responsibilities, rejecting proposals it deemed inappropriate.
The European Parliament thus demonstrated that hearings with Commissioners were not mere formalities, that Parliament is not a paper tiger and that it is capable of exercising its powers in a manner that is both demanding and responsible, without causing any crisis.
I truly believe that Parliament, the Commission and the European project emerged stronger from that exercise in parliamentary democracy, something which we can look upon as quite normal today.
Since then, our relations with the Commission have been courteous, frank and cooperative. I would like to say to the Vice-President who is here today that we are grateful for that relationship.
Parliament and the Commission have a duty to cooperate, since our two institutions represent the general European interest. It is our calling to cooperate, because the two of us, in one way or another, represent Europe’s general interest. However, we are also the body that controls the Commission, and that sometimes brings us into confrontation.
On occasions the Commission has failed to listen to us, and we have therefore rejected some of its proposals (port services or rail transport). We must therefore be determined to work together more closely on the Commission’s annual legislative work programme.
Our relations with the Council have improved as well, though they have been difficult at times.
With regard to the financial perspective, once again I regret that the Member States have not come closer to the ambitious and realistic position drawn up by the European Parliament by means of the ad hoc committee that it was my honour to chair. For the first time, the EP laid out its position before knowing the Council's position.
Parliament and the Council are co-legislators. I believe that we can be satisfied with our portion of the work in this task of co-legislating. We have often reached agreement, except in certain important cases such us the Directive on the patentability of software, where we rejected the Council's common position.
This is due to the work of all of you, of the Secretary-General and of Parliament’s Administration. I would like to thank all of you.
Everybody in Europe also recognises, however, that this Parliament has played a key role, at least with regard to three of the main issues of this half of the term in office.
With regard to the Services Directive, everybody acknowledges that Parliament has rescued the European Union from the difficult situation created as a result of an initial proposal which has been profoundly altered. Parliament has effectively exercised a power of legislative initiative that formally speaking it does not have. But it has not been an amendment, it has been a radical and profound change to the initial proposal.
With regard to REACH, we have facilitated the final compromise.
In relation to the fight against terrorism, we have reached an agreement on data retention which, without our decisive participation together with the British Presidency, would have been difficult to achieve.
We have now dealt with those big legislative issues, and I must warn Parliament that there is a risk of a degree of ‘legislative drought’, that there is a risk that we will not have any proposals on which to legislate.
We must certainly legislate better – both those who propose legislation and those who amend and approve it – but we must not confuse better regulation with less regulation ...
... and nor must better regulation be to the detriment of the rights – particularly social and environmental rights – laid down in the Community acquis.
Furthermore, at this time of farewell, I must express to you my fear that the Union’s drift towards functioning in an intergovernmental manner may lead to a declining role for the European Parliament. We will have to be on our guard in order to prevent that from happening.
Parliament is not just a co-legislator. We do not just pass laws here. We also take initiatives when the circumstances require it. We do so by creating temporary committees or committees of enquiry.
I would also like to remind you of the doubts we had thirty months ago about our capacity to operate with more Members, with nine more languages – there are now twelve more languages – and with even more diverse parliamentary cultures.
We have created two very important ones. One on alleged CIA activities, which has served to stress the importance of safeguarding the democratic values on which our Union is based and which must serve as an example. We cannot demand that others act in a way that we do not conform to at home.
With regard to the Equitable Life committee, it is clear that we have contributed to establishing who is responsible for a financial disaster which has done serious harm to thousands of European citizens.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have also been intensely concerned with illegal immigration, a problem that affects the socioeconomic balance of Europe, which is at the heart of the values we defend and which causes dramas that affect all of us.
We have sent missions to Ceuta, Melilla, Lampedusa, the Canary Islands, Paris and Malta, and they have made it possible to improve the way illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are treated and reminded governments of their responsibilities in that area. It has been a very important task on the ground, which has been accompanied by very active participation in the reflection on the future of Europe.
You will remember that Parliament approved the Constitutional Treaty by a majority, that, as its President, I defended that position in the referendum debates in various countries – not just in my own – and that, following the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes, and while many others remained silent, we took important initiatives within the process of reflection in cooperation with the Commission which the German Presidency now considers to be over.
The Conference of Presidents has been particularly committed to this task, visiting each country of the Presidency and holding debates with civil society in each country.
Now is not the time to analyse the seriousness of the crisis facing the Union as a result of the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty. We are all aware of how serious this crisis is. But in my final speech as President, I am going to demand that Parliament be closely involved in the search for a solution, and I am delighted that the German Presidency has informed me that it will ask the European Parliament to appoint a representative for this task, and it is going to ask the same of the Commission and the Member States.
We have launched a whole series of initiatives on our absorption capacity, which we have re-christened ‘integration’ capacity, and on the cost of not having a Constitution, calling upon the Commission to draw up a report on that subject. We have done so because the vast majority of Members of this Parliament – not all of us, as was demonstrated when we heard the anthem – believe in the need for a political Europe that can play a role internationally as a global player, and I can tell you that there is a very strong desire for Europe in the world, that Europe is appreciated and wanted throughout the world, perhaps more than within Europe itself.
In response to this demand for Europe, we have developed what is now known as parliamentary diplomacy.
I have personally visited various non-Member States to explain what Europe is, to listen to their problems regarding the global world, and with us in particular, and sometimes in order to negotiate. In India, in China, in many Latin American countries, in Africa, in all of the candidate countries and in almost all of the Mediterranean countries.
I believe that we can state now that we have overcome those difficulties and that the enlarged Parliament is working properly. There has been no division between the old and the new Europe.
But I have not been working alone. Our electoral observation activities are very important in the world today.
Are you aware that we have sent thirty-three delegations to twenty-six countries and that two hundred and forty-two Members have taken part in them? Are you aware of the role we have played in Ukraine, in Palestine, in Afghanistan, in the Congo and in Venezuela, just to mention the most important places?
Yes, we can be satisfied with our role in the world. Going out into the world and receiving it here.
The Heads of State of the Union’s Member States come here, but, at the invitation of Parliament’s President, fifteen Heads of State of other countries have also spoken here, at times that are important for them and for us.
Some of their names show this clearly: Viktor Yuschenko, Hamid Karzai, Mahmoud Abbas, Fuad Siniora, Evo Morales, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, to name but a few.
In that regard too we have grown in political importance, and that is another reason for us to feel proud of our work in this institution.
We can also be satisfied with the role played by the Sakharov Prize, which does so much to encourage people fighting for freedom, as Alexander Milinkievitch told us in December, or as Leyla Zana reminded me, when she told me in Istanbul how important it has been for her and her cause to be able to come to Strasbourg and to see her picture on television screens across the entire world, and the extent to which we have helped her in her struggle. I therefore regret that we have not been able to receive the Women in White, or Aung San Suu Kyi, the winner of the Sakharov Prize in 1990, who is still under house arrest in her country seventeen years later.
Ladies and gentlemen
Over these last thirty months, the defence of democratic values and human rights has been consolidated as one of our distinguishing features.
The Members from the new Member States have integrated perfectly into the different transnational political groups, working within the system and from a European point of view.
This Parliament is renowned for defending human rights, a central issue in our relations with other countries. Our delegations work intensively in this area and it has also been a feature in all of my official trips.
I have dealt with the issue – sometimes with concrete results – in Colombia, in China, in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Algeria, in Turkey … And in Lahti, in Finland, I was able to address President Putin openly, telling him that Europe will not trade human rights for energy.
We have also worked to promote cooperation amongst large regional groups.
In the EMPA we have made a significant contribution to the Barcelona process. Unfortunately, however, this has coincided with the increase in tension between the western world and the Islamic world. The EMPA is still the only place where it is possible to adopt common positions in response to conflict situations, as happened in the case of the crisis over the cartoons of Mohammed and the war in Lebanon.
Ladies and gentlemen, we must keep the EMPA alive and active, because Europe’s greatest geopolitical problem is its relations with the Islamic world, because the Mediterranean is the most unequal border in the world and because all the problems of our times are concentrated there.
The work of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly has been crucial in terms of preventing Africa from becoming globalisation's forgotten continent.
We have also been determined to establish the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly, and following intensive work over the summer, it has been established. I hope that Parliament will attach all of the importance to this new instrument for relations between Europe and Latin America that it deserves.
We have overcome distrust and antagonism with national parliaments. We have held systematic interparliamentary conferences, because we have to work together, with Members and Senators of the Parliaments of each country, and I hope that the custom of holding conferences during each Presidency that enable us to work together will continue.
Ladies and gentlemen
On leaving this high position, I note, like you, that the European Union is seeking an economic and social response to globalisation, the great issue of our times, and many Europeans, many of the citizens whom we represent here, now look upon globalisation more as a risk than as an opportunity. We may or may not regret this, but it is nevertheless the case.
We have played an important role in terms of easing East-West tensions, and that has made it possible for us to reach important agreements, the Services Directive being an excellent example.
According to Eurostat, 56% were in favour of globalisation in 2003. According to the latest Eurostat survey, that figure now stands at just 37%. A fall of twenty points over three years is undoubtedly a worrying phenomenon.
There are great differences between countries. Not all European countries see it in the same way. I am sure, however, that if each of them had to face the globalised world alone, they would feel very alone, they would feel overwhelmed by the immensity of challenges that we can respond to much more effectively together. Together we can do more, and we must therefore strengthen our Union in the quest for a common energy policy, particularly when we have had such a wake-up call in relation to gas from the East.
So far we have not had an energy policy in Europe. We have only applied our competition policy to the energy sector as if it were like any other sector. That is not enough, however, because the markets, the market, the most efficient market, does not create power, nor security, nor capacity to negotiate with third countries.
I am completely convinced that in tomorrow’s world there are two things that are going to be inextricably linked: energy and the environment, and that inextricable partnership is going to provide Europe with a new raison d'etre.
It can also find a new raison d'etre in relation to the problems of immigration, a crucial counterpoint to our demographic weakness. In the short term, Europe’s demographic shortfall can only be covered by means of more immigrants. But while we are seeking an immigration policy, desperate people from the under-developed world are risking their lives to try to reach our shores. It is a fantasy to believe that, having removed the internal borders dividing us, having decided not to have borders between us, we can each carry on having our own immigration policy, each of us controlling our own external borders.
We need to tell the Europeans that we need immigrants, but we must be capable of integrating them. No policy for controlling immigration can be successful without the development of countries of origin. Anybody who takes a trip around the Niger arc will understand that perfectly.
The European Union is also seeking own resources. Resources that are genuinely its own. We have dedicated the debate at the last two interparliamentary conferences to this. We need a system that enables us to reach budgetary agreements that are not dominated by short-term considerations of the net balance of each country in purely accounting terms. This way of discussing the financial perspective will never provide the Union with an ambitious budget.
To us as parliamentarians, this is an extremely important issue. Remember that in the early days of parliamentarianism, the saying was ‘no taxation without representation’. Well, when it comes to today’s construction of the political Europe, perhaps we can say it the other way round: ‘no real representation without taxation’
Ladies and gentlemen
Members from the ten new Member States have held some of the highest political positions in our Parliament and many of them have acted as rapporteurs.
The European citizens expect their Union to contribute to resolving many of the problems affecting their lives. They often believe that Europe is not sufficiently present when it comes to the great issues that no country can resolve alone and that it is too present when it comes to issues of little importance.
As the Commission often reminds us, the European Union needs to increase its legitimacy by producing results by means of good policies. But we have the little problem that good policies do not grow on trees. Good policies come from strong, effective and democratic institutions.
This Parliament, the symbol of representative European democracy, the embryo of the supranational democracy that we are constructing, must therefore continue to improve the way it operates in order to help to relaunch European integration.
Having expressed that wish, I would like to conclude with an imagined dialogue between Jean Monnet and the Spanish poet Antonio Machado, one of our great poets, who died in exile and who wrote a poem every Spaniard knows:
‘Everything moves on and everything remains. But the fate of human beings is to move on.’
Yes, Monnet may have replied, people move on, but institutions remain. Nobody can pass on all of their experience to others, and therefore nothing can be done without institutions.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, everything moves on. But the important thing is not that each of us moves on, but rather that we have institutions that last and that are witnesses to the history we write together.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, everything remains. Emotions and feelings remain, personally and politically speaking, and that is the most important human capital we have.
Quiet moments remain, which nobody will know about, and formal moments remain, like the European Council meetings that it has been my honour to attend on your behalf. On your behalf I have addressed Heads of State or Government, and I can tell you that we have been heard with more and more attention and we have been invited to participate more and more in their work. That is a satisfaction that I wish to share with you.
It has been a great honour to be President of the European Parliament.
I hope that they will continue to participate in this integrated fashion in the future.
I would like to thank you for your faith in me and I wish my successor every possible success.
Thank you very much."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(The House rose and applauded the speaker)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples