Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-19-Speech-2-192"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080219.28.2-192"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Many thanks to you all for your questions and comments. I certainly will not be able to do justice to all these questions. Thank you very much for the patience you have shown with the large amount of Swedish you have had to listen to because of all the questions that have been asked here.
A few brief answers regarding the gas pipeline which has been mentioned by many. There too we want to respect agreements and legislation as it appears, that is to say in accordance with international conventions and Swedish legislation we are testing the possibilities of considering that gas pipeline. We have been able to establish that the proposal we received is inadequate. We therefore sent it back. The matter will come back. I cannot assess at present the degree to which we can influence this primarily through Swedish environmental legislation. However, that will be our starting point as we do this thoroughly.
We have heard many views on whether you MEPs should move back and forth between parliaments, but here too we are aware of the way agreements work. All the Member States essentially have an influence, a kind of veto over the matter, as all you who are asking these questions know. We respect that even though, like many of our voters, we are asking questions about how successful it is to move about in the way that is done here.
We are now seeing environmentally friendly vehicles grow in Sweden to an extent that virtually no one else can show. We have introduced special premiums for environmentally friendly vehicles, which are a powerful incentive and have meant that we now have a situation where more than 30% of new vehicles sold in Sweden are environmentally friendly. This is a trend that will certainly be further accentuated.
There were several questions on the euro. Here too we are respecting agreements in the sense that we have the result of a referendum of the Swedish people in 2003. We have said that we will follow Swedish opinion. If the Swedish people change their minds, the question may possibly arise again.
I also want to point out that Sweden, which lives close to Finland with its euro, is naturally wondering what will happen in Denmark if in the autumn Denmark tests again whether its so-called opt-out in relation to the euro will be withdrawn. Then the euro will have a much greater presence as a currency close to Sweden, and that will possibly influence the Swedish people.
Some of you mentioned that it is unclear what role I am returning to. The first time it is probably not so unclear, as up to the summer I will be taking part in presenting the 18-month programme covering the French, Czech and Swedish Presidencies.
Then it is undeniably an open question as to the role to which the rotating presidency will return. We will have many ideas on this subject. I firmly believe in an EU that is anchored in its various parts of Europe. I therefore think that the rotating presidency will also have a clear role in the future, alongside the elected President who is being brought in via the new Treaty. Many thanks for your valuable comments and valuable questions.
The answers that I have are very much connected with my confidence that agreements entered into will be respected, something that I will come back to. I said that I have a strong belief in Europe. On many occasions in Sweden I have also expressed a strong confidence in the Swedish labour market model which has been developed around our Swedish collective agreements. In Sweden we have to some extent chosen a different path from many other European countries, which have placed greater emphasis on legislation, whilst we have placed greater emphasis on the social partners taking responsibility.
Our view is that the Laval judgment does not diminish the Swedish model, but that it certainly raises a number of questions concerning certain Swedish legislation. We are proceeding cautiously together with the social partners to see how changes might be made to the Swedish labour market model, but not in order to detract from it or to make fundamental changes to the way it works.
We intend to continue to respect its organisation and hope to have the discussion, and I hope that this will not be misconstrued as anything else when it is discussed around Europe.
It is said here that the internal market is not sufficient. Yes, one criticism is that the internal market is not fully functioning. It is a criticism that I often hear from businesspeople and others, that we talk about an internal market but that free movement is not all that free.
My government is certainly working with the aim of reducing social exclusion, creating the basis for self-determination through work, and ensuring that more people are in work. In addition, welfare ambitions should also be made possible for others. More people in work means more resources to build welfare solutions for people who are not able to work. So I think that the path between work and welfare is coherent in the policy pursued in Sweden.
Democracy has been mentioned in various comments here. I believe that democracy is borne here admirably by its elected representatives. It is not a bad form of democracy. I think that many of you here today have represented your voters well, and I too am prepared to do it in various ways. Democracy is the capacity to take decisions and must be so.
Our Swedish experience of referendums, I would point out, is very mixed. Sometimes it has been clear what it is we are asking and what is being answered. Sometimes we have asked a question and been given a different answer and spent many years discussing what the Swedish people actually answered. I know that there have been similar experiences in a number of other countries.
The kind of treaty based on many amendments which is now at issue, and which we have decided on previously in Europe’s history without referendums, we are prepared to decide on in the context of representative democracy. I think this is an admirable way to show how a living democracy must work."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples