Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-28-Speech-3-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071128.16.3-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, I firstly want to thank everyone who has spoken for their comments and the tone of these. I can also say that I am delighted at how lively this debate has been, which was in fact just what I had hoped for. I am also delighted to have been able to contribute to a debate of such liveliness and intensity, particularly given some of the speeches for which I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
However, I must make one point which I feel is important for the future. I do not know whether we can achieve this at any point, but it is an obvious problem in the European Union: we have an imperfect system of ratification on which there has never been any in-depth debate. In my opinion, ratification should be common, by all countries, and, if possible, in a single act and with a single instrument. This is clearly difficult at the moment, but very desirable, and I hope that in time we can have this type of ratification.
Some speakers raised the issue – which has existed from the start, since the foundation of the Union in its first configuration as the European Coal and Steel Community and then as the European Economic Community – of the relationship between the European Union and the nation states. This issue has often called into question the whole democratic health of the European Union, as many decisions are logically taken through an intergovernmental procedure.
I will now very briefly give my opinion on this issue.
Firstly, the nation state is a form of political organisation which, in historical terms, seeks to unify territories, rationalise public action and subsequently pave the way to democratic systems. It has therefore fulfilled an important historical task.
The European Union is a form of political organisation which is based on the experience of the nation state. It is a higher stage of the nation state. It does not take anything away from the nation state, but rather adds to this and its traditional configuration. This is because, as demonstrated by the history of political coexistence, political civilisation and political community, to unite usually means to add. Uniting and sharing are what the European Union is all about. It is not about taking anything away from or weakening what the traditional concept of the nation state represents. In fact, the stronger the European Union is, the stronger our nation states will be. That is my opinion.
This also means that the European Union will be more capable, through its institutions which need legitimacy and constant legitimation by the politicians and governments of these countries ... I absolutely reject one particular theory which exists in the European Union which is that, for many of the problems that exist in our economic, private or social lives, responsibility lies with Brussels. This attitude is detrimental to the integration of the European Union and to our citizens and is also, on most occasions, usually incorrect.
I believe that history can show us and the present can teach us that the tendency to blame others for what we have failed to achieve results in melancholy and a negative attitude among people.
Some speakers mentioned concrete objectives and fine words. I agree: there can be no actions without words, and no words without actions in terms of political action. I therefore believe that everything that represents an option for the future has to have priorities, political priorities which are credible and which are observable in actions and in decisions. These are under discussion. I will summarise the three that seem most important to me for the future of the European Union.
Please allow me to say that these priorities have nothing to do with treaties or operating rules or structures or revision of legislation or the reduction of legislation by the Commission which, however, would be very convenient. They relate to the political objectives of the time in which we are living. I agree with the person who said that the European Union is the fruit of the interaction of many ideologies and many values. However, the European Union can be a regional force leading the world in values and actions only if it correctly identifies the priorities of the historic times in which we are living now at the beginning of the 21st century.
The first priority is to look at what Europe knows, because the best experiences of this continent constitute a priceless lesson. Science, creativity and innovation are what have made our economies strong and our countries socially integrated. The challenge now posed by science, which is both a challenge and an opportunity, is climate change and energy sources. I must underline something that was said in some of the speeches because it is not well-known and I did not make it very clear in my speech. It is true that Spain is a long way from meeting the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This may be true, but it is also true that, in 2006, in other words one year after my government came to power, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 4% even though the economy grew by 4%. We are therefore engaged in intensive action which will continue with regard, firstly, to alternative and renewable energies and, secondly, to energy efficiency and saving.
Spain is grateful to the European Union, to the founding fathers and to the large countries such as France, Germany and Italy which have helped us to bring democracy to our country, which have welcomed us into Europe and which have then, with their resources, contributed to our development. We are grateful to other public figures and statesmen that I have not mentioned today, such as Helmut Kohl, Mr Mitterrand and Mr Palme who have contributed so much to both the democracy of Spain and its future. We feel very proud to be contributing to this common cause.
Some 20 years ago, the big debate on how to take the lead in innovation in Europe – I am sure that this Parliament had this debate on innumerable occasions – was all about developing the new economy, the economy of information technologies. Now the new economy that will ensure the future of productive capacity and therefore its prosperity will be the economy which can, as quickly as possible, reduce our dependency on coal and provide an alternative energy source which is increasingly powerful. In my opinion this is the first challenge. I must stress that this is not only a challenge but also a great opportunity, because herein lies a good part of the knowledge that is going to guarantee us many things and also a good part of the potential sources of jobs and activities with greater added value and, therefore, with good social capacity.
Secondly, Europe must advance socially. It is true to say that Europe can only advance socially, bearing in mind the African continent, the Latin American continent or part of the Asian continent, if at the same time we make determined and decisive advances in cooperation and development aid.
This is because, and please forgive me for saying this publicly, I do not know what the people and governments of many countries in Africa can think when they see the European Union sometimes having a debate on what it thinks about a deep crisis. I do not know what they can think. I am just saying how I see it. I believe that, fortunately, thanks in particular to our work on democracy, innovation capacity and the welfare state which was born in this continent, thanks to these three values (work, democracy and the welfare state), we can be the continent and the Union which has the best social protection and the highest level of income and welfare.
For me, improving social welfare continues to be a fundamental objective. An open economy and a social state with social rights for the people are not incompatible. In fact, these are complementary. Social policies do not consume wealth. They can help to create wealth, to create the conditions so that everyone can participate, through education with equal opportunities, reconciliation of family and working life which requires a social policy, and employment stability which is the best incentive for productivity in the task of helping to create wealth. Social policies with productivity and people-oriented objectives are a possible model which works. Of course, the model which can achieve the biggest transformation is the model of full integration and full equality for women in all labour and social spheres.
Spain has changed a great deal, in part due to democracy in the last 30 years. However, what has changed Spain the most has been the integration of women into working life, social life and the civic life of the country. That is what has changed us most and what has changed us for the better, for definite, because it has involved values of solidarity and progress. I want to remind you that I have a government which consists equally of men and women; none of the people here are actually from the government.
Finally, I want to mention our third objective which, together with the challenge of climate change, the extension of social welfare and the affirmation of social rights, must be developed as a trade mark of Europe. It has enabled us to get where we are and to be a reference point for other countries. This third main objective is to ensure and reinforce coexistence in a very particular manner, bearing in mind that we live in a continent which, in the last 20 or 30 years, has seen increased demographic changes in many countries.
This coexistence means integration and absolute and total intolerance of any signs of racism and xenophobia. This is what coexistence means. Europe must not betray a single one of its values and, if there is one essential value in the democratic Europe, it is respect for cultural and religious diversity and therefore the firm rejection of any signs of xenophobia or racism. We would fail as Europeans if we succumbed to this temptation.
This coexistence must be accompanied by great tolerance. Increasing individual and collective rights is not only the best expression of freedom, it is also another value with which, in my opinion, Europe must identify. For indeed, what better freedom can there be than respecting the religious, cultural and political beliefs of everyone or their sexual orientations when forming a partnership or entering into a marriage? What better expression of freedom is there than this?
If Europe is the union of democrats, as I said before, it cannot be just about freedom: Europe must be about freedom and equality.
This gratitude is accompanied by the thought of what Spain has been able to achieve in the last 25 years. Probably no other society in the world has seen such a political and economic transformation and such progress in its rights, freedoms and the social situation of its people as Spain has seen in the last 25 years.
Spain has always been very committed to Europe and has always been very pro-European. Representatives of all parties, cultures and political ideologies and representatives with great political weight have served the European institutions, in the Commission and in this Parliament where we have had three Presidents. All have served very well and I want at this point to pay tribute to those who have represented Spain in the European institutions. They have managed to forge a common pro-European culture in a form of political organisation which, according to the speeches that have just been made, is unprecedented.
The political union that we call the European Union has no precedent or model to turn to because it does not fit within any of the known political classifications. Therein lies the greatness of the European Union and also its unpredictability given the necessary process of establishing a common will shared by 27 countries, 27 flags, 27 states, 27 nations, 20 languages and a wealth of ideologies that can be seen here in the European Parliament.
As a result, every advance that we have made in the European process has had no one colour and has come from no one country or ideology. It has had no one colour, no one ideological colour, and no one flag. In fact every advance has been the sum of all parts with its own flag and its own colour which is that of coexistence and unity. If anything really represents the European soul, it is a union of democrats. That is Europe: a union of democrats which means making progress based on positions which are as consensual as possible, which respect and involve everyone and which offer the same opportunities, even to those who profoundly disagree with what the European Union represents. The greatness of the European Union lies in the fact that it is a club which offers the same opportunities to those who are in favour of Europe and to those who do not want Europe to advance. That is the greatness of the European club; that is the greatness, in short, of a union of democrats.
Someone referred to a ‘mini Treaty’. The perspective that we adopt can always leave us unsatisfied in terms of achieving our objectives, but if this new Treaty is ratified by everyone and if it works, it will be a great Treaty, not a mini Treaty. That at least is the position which, in my opinion, we should adopt today. We must give it time and see the potential that it may have when brought into force and when used to tackle the challenges that lie ahead.
Reference was made to ratification of the Treaty. This was necessary because Spain was one country which held a consultative referendum on the Constitutional Treaty which has since been through a process of renegotiation with the nature of a treaty, in the most classic sense of what the European concept represents.
I have been asked – and I do not want to avoid any questions – why we did not submit this to a referendum. There are two very obvious reasons: the first is because the Spanish people said they were in favour of a Constitutional Treaty. The Treaty that we have now adopted, pending ratification, which is already known as the Lisbon Treaty, contains many of the aspects of the earlier Constitutional Treaty. The second reason, which is very important, is that there is broad consensus in our country on the parliamentary ratification of this Treaty, both among those of us who agree with this Treaty and even among the minorities who do not agree."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples