Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-17-Speech-3-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070117.3.3-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would just like to refer to some of the points that were highlighted during our very fruitful debate, especially now that Chancellor Merkel has also referred to energy.
Many speakers referred to energy and to the importance of energy in relation to third countries, namely Russia. Mr Daul said that we need to speak with a common voice externally – I agree. But let us be frank: to speak with one common voice externally, we cannot go on speaking with 27 different voices internally. We need a common market, an integrated market, for energy. We also need a clear energy policy internally. Without coherence we are not credible.
I emphasise the issue of energy very strongly because, apart from its value in itself, it is one of the most powerful drivers for the European project. Let us not forget that the European Communities started after the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. The same day that the Treaty of Rome was signed for the European Economic Community, the Euratom Treaty was also signed. Since the very beginning, energy has been at the core of the European project.
Today, if there is a matter where the idea of solidarity applies, it is precisely this issue of energy. But we are linking energy with climate change because climate change is one of the most important challenges – if not the most important challenge – of the 21st century. Our founding fathers could not make a reference to it in the Messina Declaration or in the Rome Treaties, but we now have a duty to put that as a very important global challenge.
That brings us to the nature of our European Union. The old question of more or less Europe belongs in the 20th century. The debate now is not whether we need Europe, but how to make it work properly and in a more efficient way. We need more efficient decision-making, more democratic accountability in an enlarged Europe and a more coherent external position of the European Union. Those are the basic reasons why we need a constitutional settlement, not because of any theological discussion about a superstate in Europe. No one is really proposing a superstate, a centralised state in Europe. What we are proposing is a European Union dimension that is indispensable to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That is quite obvious! Even Germany, the biggest Member State, or Britain, France or Italy, cannot meet those challenges alone. That is why we need the added value of our Union.
We must also look pragmatically at areas where we can do more and at areas where we can do less. One area where we can and should do less is bureaucracy. We have to reduce bureaucracy, and we must have better regulation to improve the conditions for our companies and for our citizens. Therefore, it is not a question of more, or less, Europe, but of a better Europe.
If we work in the spirit of partnership we have seen today – of course, with democratic debate – between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, we can achieve results during these six months. I should like to promise the President-in-Office and the President of Parliament that we will try to achieve real results during these six months so that our European Union can make progress and so that we can look forward to the next 50 years with hope and with pride."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples