Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-13-Speech-2-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071113.4.2-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank all the groups for their very interesting and challenging comments. Let me first try to answer some specific issues, and then I shall make some general comments.
The Commission will also submit proposals to amend the European Works Council Directive in order for them to anticipate and accompany restructuring. Another piece of legislation will concern the conditions of pregnant women, aiming at improving existing maternity protection provisions with a view to reconciling professional, private and family life.
An initiative will concern the deepening of the open method of coordination in the areas of social protection and social inclusion. This will be accompanied by a recommendation on active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market, concentrating on three pillars: job opportunities and vocational training, income support, and better access to quality services. This takes place in the context of the overall Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs.
Finally, the Commission will adopt the communication on anticipating and managing change, launching the second phase of consultation of European social partners on anticipating company restructuring. Just to give you some examples that we are indeed committed to the social agenda in Europe.
Mr Duff, as regards the need to ratify the Treaty, as you understand, I fully share that priority, and I think, precisely, that the social and cultural dimension of Europe should be highlighted. I am doing my best in this matter, trying to explain that in Europe we need a strong internal market, but Europe is more than a market, and I think you can agree that this is also a shared commitment.
Regarding the ‘Wise Men’s Group’ proposal of President Sarkozy, about which you have asked for my opinion, the Commission has discussed this issue. We are, naturally, in favour of any initiative that promotes debate and reflection on the future of Europe. As real democrats we like debate. That is perhaps our
but we like debate, we like ideas and the exchange of ideas. So I think that President Sarkozy’s initiative should be seen as part of the promotion of such debate and reflection. However, the Commission is keen to make sure that this initiative, if it were to be approved by the European Council, does not undermine our efforts to build on the success of the Lisbon Treaty and, most of all, does not undermine its certification.
We must be clear about this. That is why we think that this group, in the event of approval by the European Council, should not engage in a new institutional debate. I do not think it would be wise to do this, so I will ask the ‘Wise Men’ (and women, hopefully!) to be wise enough not to open new institutional debates, but rather to concentrate on a vision for Europe in 20 or 30 years’ time. This is important, and why should we not have a good debate on this?
We should not, either, engage in a negative debate about the geographical limits of the borders of Europe. This could be divisive, and it should not undermine our ongoing processes at European level, such as the budgetary review and normal conduct of enlargement negotiations. It is important because of defending institutions. We are for all kinds of debate, but let us be honest: we have institutions. We have the European Parliament, we have the Commission, we have the European Council and, in the end, the institutions are responsible – not wise men or, as we would prefer maybe to say, ‘the bright kids’ – and what they could bring as a stimulus to our debate.
We also believe that the timing of the report of such a group should be given careful consideration; the end of 2009 seems appropriate.
Mr Jonckheer, thank you for your comments, especially as regards the Community method and the Greens’ support for it. We shall be very mindful of this. You will doubtless have noticed that during the debate on the Reform Treaty – the Lisbon Treaty – certain attempts were made to dilute the Community process. The Commission, which had cooperated effectively with Parliament, managed to avoid anything that could challenge the principles of the Community system.
You said that 2007 has been an important year for the ‘great cause’, namely the challenge of climate change, and we in the Commission and in the European Union are proud to have contributed to this effort. Indeed, the Commission’s Green Paper provided the basis for the agreement that was eventually reached at the March European Council. The European Union can be proud of having taken the lead in this area and it intends to continue its efforts in this direction, especially with the forthcoming Bali Conference and in the wake of major recent meetings such as the High-Level Event in New York and the G8 at Heiligendamm, which also proved decisive. It will do this with a view to launching a process that, by the time of the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, will lead – we hope – to the establishment of a post-Kyoto regime by 2012. This really is an ambitious target. In any event, we are aware that we need to motivate our other partners in this direction.
I should like to thank Mr Nassauer for the general support he gave to our priorities. Regarding the main issue – subsidiarity – he mentioned, let me say that we are as committed as he to the goal he has set, more precisely: to create a new culture of subsidiarity in Europe and to give our own example. I really am committed to that. I am not pretending that we are perfect. Sometimes it is difficult to change old habits, but we are moving in the right direction. When there are mistakes, which sometimes happens, then we try to correct them. The recent case we mentioned regarding the
is a good example of that, and we should accept that sometimes we cannot foresee all the consequences of the regulations we are preparing.
Turning to the issue of migration you say that the European Union should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It could also be similarly recognised for its activities in other areas, too. In fact, I think that the European Union has long merited a Nobel Peace Prize, for when it comes to the experience of peace in the world there are few regions better qualified than the European Community, now the European Union. Let me give you an example. This month I am going to Singapore to take part in the ASEAN Summit and the Association invited me because it is seeking inspiration, based on our experience of regional integration, to work for peace, economic growth and social development. We should be proud to be an example to others in the world and this is something that we are working at continuously.
On the subject of migration I wish to reply here to several questions that have been raised by Members of this Parliament. I have said this repeatedly and I say it again here: I find that it is absurd to have to deal with 27 migration policies in Europe. We have an integrated area here and we therefore need to have a common approach. Now let us be clear: some Member States are against it. However, we shall persist, for in an integrated area there is a greater probability of being confronted with problems of the kind that Italy has had to face recently, including that posed by certain citizens from Romania. We need more immigration in Europe, not less: that is the truth of the matter.
That is why we are calling for an immigration policy that is responsible and that is based on two key aspects. Firstly, we have to be resolute when it comes to security by openly combating all forms of exploitation in the workplace and by eliminating the illegal labour market. For this reason we fully support the initiative put forward by Vice-President Frattini for a directive that will criminalise the employment of persons residing illegally in EU territory, the objective being to prevent the exploitation of such workers and to crack down on the criminal networks involved. We have to deal firmly with illegal immigration and with all types of activities that act as a cover for certain networks that are often nothing more than criminal gangs, for these groups are not only connected with illegal immigration but also with drug dealing, human trafficking and other forms of organised crime.
At the same time we need to adopt an open, generous and united approach to the problem of how to integrate, first and foremost, those who are Community citizens and then, more generally, those who belong to the various migrant groups. We need to have the courage to say that this is a task that has to be shared out. The role of the European institutions is to put the framework in place, but when it comes to the practical side of things who will take care of the actual integration process on the ground? Not the European Parliament and not the Commission, but the national governments, the regions, the local authorities, the NGOs and sometimes even the churches, indeed everyone who has a presence on the ground and who has a duty to improve integration. All this is a major challenge.
You mentioned Kofi Annan. I have discussed this matter with him on several occasions. If there is one area that is poorly regulated on a global scale it is migration. We have laid down certain organisational principles for world trade and indeed for the environment, too. It is astonishing to note that migration, which is one of the greatest challenges the world has to face, is one area where organisation is lacking on an international level. I support your proposal that we in the European Union –precisely because we are a special case when it comes to integration and freedom of movement – should double our efforts to promote certain principles because Europe and the wider world are currently facing real threats in the form of xenophobia, populist movements and negative forces from the past that are opposed to those principles that we uphold, namely humanism and hospitality. We have to steer well clear of extremist positions and must work towards a rational, fair and progressive approach.
Mr Wurtz, you asked a number of questions about trade protection instruments. First of all, I referred to these instruments in my speech by saying that we would very soon be introducing several initiatives in this area. Let me say to you that we are very much in favour of establishing effective mechanisms for safeguarding our commercial interests and providing protection against unfair practices. It is for this reason that we are presently looking at various ways of making these instruments more effective. What is more, we shall do this in a transparent fashion. A major consultation has just taken place with a view to ensuring that our businesses, especially the SMEs, are better equipped to cope with international competition. We intend to take the relevant decisions in this area in December.
It should be recognised that Europe’s businesses are the most international in the world. European production and distribution chains have now been established in every corner of the planet and are not merely restricted to the Member States. We believe that this business presence on the global stage is a source of competitiveness and growth for the European economy and for European jobs. I can assure you that we have no intention of rewarding or subsidising European companies that decide to relocate to third countries or set up part of their production facilities there. However, I will be completely honest with you in saying that we are not going to sanction or punish the European companies that are the most global and the most competitive in the world. We therefore need trade protection instruments that are both solid and transparent. We shall be reviewing our trade protection instruments with a view to introducing stronger measures – and indeed it will never be our intention to weaken them – by adapting them, obviously, to the new realities of globalisation.
I am not going to dwell on the topic of globalisation. I shall be back here again tomorrow to discuss the document that we presented to the last European Council, and to the Community at large, on bringing added value to Europe and on the means for shaping globalisation to best effect. We are very aware of the need to defend European interests around the world, to protect our interests without resorting to protectionism, to comprehend and to have the courage to say to the people of Europe that if we in Europe close our doors we will be the first ones to suffer. It will not be easy but it has to be done. Europe is the world’s largest exporter. It would be self-defeating and against our own interests if we were to go down the road of protectionism. The important thing is to work out how to keep our doors open without being naïve, how to maintain and even extend the opening-up of the global markets while at the same time defending our own interests, and this includes taking account of our concerns for the employment sector.
Mr Crowley, thank you also for your support for our general programme. About the specific point – I know it is a worry and concern for you – let me be clear about the initiatives on taxation.
I want to assure you that I and the college that is present here are committed to subsidiarity. In all our initiatives we are now looking at the need for a specific legislative initiative – the impact assessment and the quality of our proposals – and we try to do it that way.
As you know, the Commission has been working for some time on the issue of a common consolidated tax base. This is a very complex area and views are very different between Member States. I know well the sensitivity in Ireland. I also know the sensitivity in other Member States. As is usual practice, the Commission is carrying out an impact assessment to analyse the issues and to look at the likely impact of different possible solutions before making any formal proposals. All of this is public knowledge and it is entirely appropriate that the Commission refers to this in the work programme for 2008.
But I agree with you that it is clear that unanimity is in the Reform Treaty as the rule for any legislation on these issues of taxation. So I believe that your concerns are well taken on board.
I think I have reacted to most of your interesting remarks. Let me just say that I, of course, concentrated on the most, let us say, polemic issues. What I want to say is that we could see here a degree of consensus about Europe. A consensus that I believe is stronger between the institutions, also with the natural differences between political families and I hope also consensus between the different parts of our very diverse Union.
This, I think, is not the lowest common denominator consensus. It is mainly the result of three factors. First, many of the challenges facing us today are impossible to contest. The imperatives of climate change, the realities of migration, and the risk of worldwide poverty: all these are clear challenges. And you can be from the left, the right or the centre, you can be from the north or south of Europe, from the old Member States or new Member States, from small or big Member States, yet these are common challenges that only together we can face.
Second, we are making it progressively clear that the European Union is central to resolving these issues. Action by individual Member States can only go so far but it becomes more and more obvious that the European dimension is indispensable.
Of course we have to see what is the appropriate level of using the European dimension – the subsidiarity issue that was raised by some of you – but I think that we can agree that even the biggest Member States alone cannot face all those challenges and that we need some level of European commitment.
Finally, I believe the effort all the institutions have put into dialogue and cooperation is paying off. We are wasting less of our energies in scoring points against each other and more on focussing on how to serve our citizens – and always putting the emphasis on the citizens. A strong Union, yes, but a strong Union not for the sake of the institutions themselves, but a strong Union to deliver concrete results for our citizens: this is our programme. I think that, 50 years on, the genius of the founding fathers in creating our unique mix of institutions is as strong as ever.
So, I very much look forward to working closely with Parliament as we carry forward proposals on the table into action, as we crystallise our thinking into concrete measures and as we develop our new agenda for the future.
On my own behalf and on behalf of all the college, I want to tell you that we really want to have a working, loyal and dynamic interaction with Parliament.
Let me just highlight that, out of the 26 strategic initiatives I have announced, only 8 are of a legislative nature; out of 61 priority initiatives, only 28 are of a legislative nature; out of 87, only 36 are of a legislative nature in general. On top of this, we will withdraw 30 pieces of legislation.
However, the point I want to make to you is the following: when we speak about the new culture of subsidiarity, I need your help to explain to our citizens that this is in order to strengthen the European Union, not to weaken it; in order to make the institutions more democratic and more accountable, and not to give in to those who are attacking Europe and the European Union in a populist, demagogic way. This is not the way I see subsidiarity. Sometimes, in some of our Member States, people say that, because of subsidiarity, the Commission or the European Parliament should not come forward with this kind of programme because this goes against subsidiarity. In fact, if what they do not want is the European Union to act when European action is needed, then I do not agree that this is indeed in favour of subsidiarity.
To give you a recent example: in March the European Council adopted, as you know, some very important ideas for energy and the environment, namely protection against climate change. For instance, we adopted the general principles of unbundling. This was a decision of the European Council. However, I have sometimes heard some Member States state that the Commission should not insist on unbundling, because this is against the principle of subsidiarity. I do not agree with this, and I have to say so. It is, in fact, resistance to an important European movement that is in favour of creating a real internal market for energy and of having a very strong policy against climate change. This is not in favour of subsidiarity.
This is the point where we need your help. We need your help to explain when the European Union action is needed, and to be critical of us when you think that European action is not needed, so that we should, if necessary, scrap some legislation.
I will come back to Mr Swoboda’s point on communication later, but I think he is right. In fact, I, together with Vice-President Wallström and the whole college, are working on this. But the basic idea is, precisely, partnerships. Let us be honest about this. We cannot do everything by ourselves. When I say ‘we’, I mean the European institutions – the Commission and the European Parliament. We need the active involvement of leaders at all levels – national and regional. This is important for subsidiarity. For instance, the Länder in Germany, the regions in most of our Member States, are critically important, and my college and I have been all over Europe in the national parliaments, sometimes in the different regions, explaining. I was recently in Poland, saying this very clearly, saying that Europe is not them in Brussels or Strasbourg: Europe is us, all over Europe, and this is a collective responsibility. That is, once again, a change of paradigm, because if you want to motivate the citizens for the European idea, we have to share with them those priorities and not just think about ‘some people in Brussels or in Strasbourg’ telling the other citizens what they should or should not do.
We have mentioned the social dimension. I could not, of course, highlight all the points. Let me just tell you that in our programme there are many legislative and non-legislative initiatives in this area. Most importantly, we will conclude the work on stock-taking of European society with the vision of how to promote opportunities, access and solidarity in the Europe of the 21st century. This will pave the way for a new social agenda and provide the framework for a dynamic and modern approach to the contribution of European Union policy to European society today."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Apfelwein"1
"tropisme"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples