Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-18-Speech-3-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080618.2.3-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the European Council starting tomorrow has a heavy agenda covering many issues where citizens expect Europe to act.
The Irish Government has set out clearly its respect for the right of other countries to continue their ratification processes. This is, I believe, self-evident. All the countries in Europe are equal; all the countries have the right to express their opinion.
While it is clear that the Lisbon Treaty cannot enter into force before unanimity about its ratification, it is also clear that an Irish vote decides on the Irish position but cannot determine the position of other countries. I expect the Member States that did not ratify the Lisbon Treaty to continue their own ratification processes.
The European Council gives us all an opportunity to listen very carefully to what Prime Minister Cowen will say. Then we must work very closely with the Irish Government to help solve this problem. Let me be clear: Ireland has a responsibility to contribute to finding a solution. When governments sign the Treaty they assume a responsibility to have it ratified. But let me be equally clear: this is a time for us to be serious about solidarity. Twenty-seven Member States signed the Treaty; we must make every effort to make sure that 27 Member States find a way forward. Member States are equal in their dignity and we should be clear about that.
This will take time and effort for the Irish, but also for all of us. I do not think that we can rush into a premature decision about the next step. We need to take the time to find a real consensus and see what is possible for Ireland. But equally we should not take too long. I know that this Parliament is keen to give voters clarity on the way forward by the time of the European elections.
The European Commission is ready to make its contribution – and I am sure this Parliament is too – but there is no way around the fact that governments have a particular responsibility here: in signing the Treaty, in making sure it is ratified, in promoting the European project in their national public opinions. And on this last point let me make a general comment that I think may be useful for the debate that is going on now. Years of treating the European institutions as a convenient scapegoat leaves fertile ground for populist campaigns.
As I have said several times before, you cannot bash Brussels or Strasbourg from Monday to Saturday and expect citizens to vote in favour of Europe on Sunday.
Tomorrow the European Council will also stress that the ‘no’ vote must not be a reason for the European Union to fall into the trap of institutional navel-gazing. We have made important progress in the past couple of years and it has been on the back of a determined effort to deliver policies in the interests of European citizens. At a time when rising food and oil prices are leading to great expectations for action, we cannot afford to abandon this path. That is why I very much welcome Prime Minister Janez Janša and the Slovenian presidency’s decision to ring-fence the debate on Lisbon to the dinner on Thursday night and to devote the rest of the European Council to furthering our policy agenda.
Today, everyone is feeling the pressure of price rises in food and fuel but for some there is an extra burden. For poorer households these costs are a bigger share of the household budget so the rises hit even harder. The same is true for some economic activities, with fuel so critical for some industries.
In two communications on food and oil prices the Commission has made a careful analysis of the causes of the price rises, of where the squeeze is most intense and of what we can and should do.
The European Union needs to show that it is bringing to bear the full range of measures available at European and national level. We need to take a dynamic and imaginative look at the tools at our disposal – to look at what will have a real impact in the short, medium and long term. Let us remember previous oil shocks where Europe failed to learn the long-term lessons. Let us hope this time it will be not as it happened in the past, where after all the oil shocks we came back to business as usual. I hope this time we really have an opportunity to change, and to change the paradigm of energy consumption in Europe and in the world.
To alleviate problems on food inside the European Union we will come forward with proposals to extend our scheme to distribute food to the most deprived before seeking a two-thirds increase in the budget for this specific area.
In addition, the European Union has tools which can and will be brought to bear: to monitor prices, to use competition powers to check the food supply chain, boosting reserves, ensuring that the CAP is well attuned to the current realities of the agricultural market.
As for oil prices, immediate steps are justified to help the most hard-pressed households. However, it will be futile for governments to use public money to offset energy-price rises that are here, most likely, to stay. We should also look at the levels available to the European Union in areas such as competition and taxation. The Commission will come up with proposals to increase transparency in emergency and commercial oil stocks. We will also come with proposals on taxation to support and facilitate the transition to a low-carbon economy, namely in the field of energy efficiency. We will also support a high-level meeting of producers and consumers of oil and fossil fuel energy.
Specifically on fisheries: we will come forward with an emergency package to address problems of economic and social hardship, allowing Member States to give short-term emergency aid, and we will look again at the rules on small-scale state aid. I have three points here. First, it must be coordinated: we should avoid a rash of national initiatives which simply displace the problems elsewhere in the Union. Secondly, we must target our alleviation efforts on the worst-hit segments of the fleet. Thirdly, we must find structural solutions to overcapacity in the fishing industry.
The pressures being faced by Europeans today show why the European Union’s goals on energy security, energy efficiency and climate change are so crucial to the well-being of European society, and this is why they are more urgent than ever. As demand continues to outstrip supply in oil and gas, the goals agreed last year provide a ready-made path to reduce Europe’s vulnerability and to reduce the economic pain of future price hikes. The key aspects of the package of proposals that we have put forward and are now being considered by this Parliament will make a decisive contribution.
The basic idea is the following: the prices of energy most likely will never go back to previous levels, so there is a structural problem there. We can, and we should, have short-term answers, namely for those who are the most vulnerable in our societies. However, for a structural problem we need a structural answer, a structural response. The structural response is our climate change and renewables package; it is not to be dependent on fossil fuels but to promote renewables and to do more in terms of energy efficiency. That is the basic line we should follow.
The issues are the surge in oil and food prices, climate change and energy security, migration and asylum to name but a few.
So I hope that now in Europe those who still have doubts about the importance of changing our energy paradigm, those who still have doubts about the need to fight climate change, will understand at last that, if not because of that but because of energy security and because of the need to increase our competitiveness in our economy, we really need to deliver on our commitments regarding climate change and renewables.
The structural response to the structural challenges we face basically is to save and diversify. By saving I mean increasing energy efficiency where we have a huge unexploited potential. Diversification covers both the sources and the geographical origin of energy. Both are about increasing Europe’s energy security. Adoption of our climate change and energy security package is, therefore, a matter of urgency. The task of the European Council will be to give a signal about this and to prepare everything to reach a political agreement at the latest, we hope, by next December.
I think it is an important task of the European Council to show that the ‘no’ vote on the Lisbon Treaty is not an excuse to avoid action. It should not mean paralysis for Europe. We must show that we will find the right way to secure the efficient and democratic Europe the Treaty has been designed to deliver.
Let me conclude with a more political remark. I think we – those who have supported and are supporting the Lisbon Treaty, this Parliament and the Commission – should not make apologies for that, because the competition outside is stronger than ever; it will be tougher than ever. What we need is a European Union that works better for our citizens, to deliver on the real challenges that face us. Those challenges will remain: the problems of energy security, the problem of climate change, the problems of international terrorism, the problems of increased competition coming from emerging powers, and the problems of migration. Those challenges are there and we need to tackle them in a more efficient manner.
Therefore, let us not now put the blame on the European Union. Let us be honest about it. It is true that very often when we hold a referendum we have seen a ‘no’ vote regarding Europe. But let us be completely honest. If there were a referendum on most of our national policies and most of our initiatives, would we always have a ‘yes’ vote? Therefore, let us not always put the blame on the European Union or the European intuitions. The truth is that, today, to take political decisions at European, national or regional level is a very tough matter.
Therefore, we have to be wise, prudent and serious about it. We should not always put the blame on the European Union. On the contrary, we should work to make it better: be modest about the setbacks, understand what is not going well, make our improvements and not give up on our commitment. I believe the best way to do that is to avoid pessimism and not to go back to a situation of
a crisis for the sake of a crisis. Pessimism will not solve this problem. It is true we have a serious problem, but we should solve it and not fall back into depression.
The best way to show that we are committed to our project – and in that regard I would also like to welcome the intentions of the French presidency – is to work concretely on the most important areas where the European Union can deliver and help our Member States deliver on those problems that are really the first concern of our citizens. I hope that we will not be demoralised by this and will keep our line. What we need, of course, is sailors and navigators for fair weather but also for stormy times. I believe we should stay on course and go on with our project so that Europe is more necessary than ever.
But of course foremost in everybody’s mind will be the ‘no’ vote in Ireland. This ‘no’ vote was a disappointment to all those in favour of a stronger, more efficient and accountable European Union. The Lisbon Treaty remains essential to help us respond to the challenges that Europe faces today; to have a more democratic Union, increasing the powers of this Parliament and recognising the role of national parliaments in European politics; to enhance Europe’s capacity to act in areas like migration, energy, climate change, internal security; to increase Europe’s coherence and effectiveness on the global stage.
These challenges have not gone away. The truth is that the ‘no’ vote did not solve the problems which the Treaty seeks to tackle.
For the last six years we have spent a lot of energy on institutional issues. With so many key issues pressing for action today we cannot afford this energy to go to waste, and the world does not stop and wait for Europe.
As I said last week, the Commission fully respects the outcome of the Irish referendum. We must show the same respect for all national ratifications
whether they have chosen to take the route of referendum or of parliamentary ratification. There have been 19 democratic decisions in the process so far: 18 in favour of the Lisbon Treaty; one against. Eight other Member States still have to take position."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Some Members on the right, who were wearing green T-shirts, stood up to display banners and posters calling for respect for the ‘no’ vote in Ireland. The President asked them to remove the banners and posters.)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples