Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-24-Speech-2-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080624.3.2-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I listened carefully to what Mr Nassauer had to say; he made a good analysis of the state of play of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, which leads 21 governments in the European Union, provides the great majority of Commissioners and holds a large majority in the European Parliament. I suggest that you repeat the description that you have just given of the state of play of your group as well as of the Commission at an EPP Congress – then you will make some progress. For one thing is quite true: the question that we have to discuss here is how far removed is Europe – and, above all, how far removed are the Member States that make up this Union and the governments of those Member States – from citizens’ everyday problems? It is rather too easy simply to say that it is just the European institutions’ fault.
We shall certainly have to take issue with the Commission. Didn’t it do well, presenting the package of measures on the Friday after the Irish referendum – absolutely brilliant! It did not include in the Irish referendum the requisite measures to be taken by the Commission which it has just set out for us. Then it announced them on the Friday when the votes were being counted. What a monumental error. We shall certainly have to talk about this. However, we most certainly cannot stand here and say that it was the Commission’s fault and then just give the institution a bit of a dressing-down. That would be too easy.
I shall come back to this in just a moment. Firstly, there is something that I should like to say to the Presidency of the Council. You ran a good Presidency. The President of this House has rightly said that it was a Parliament-friendly Presidency.
I should also like to thank you for a matter which you and I discussed early this year: the lifting of the embargo against Cuba was, to my mind, a vitally important step because it will significantly simplify the European Union’s policy on Latin America. This is an element of strategic partnership that we must promote in the area of climate change and energy policy. I think that it is good that you have cleared an obstacle out the way. Incidentally, you have ended on a hypocritical note, hypocritical in the sense that some of the Member States which have used their veto in the Council constantly to perpetuate this embargo are the same ones as those which are among the largest direct investors in Cuba. It was, therefore, a very, very good measure!
You have made progress in a number of other areas under your Presidency, areas which I no longer need to refer to individually, as they have been mentioned by other speakers in this House. However, I think that a small country, a new Member State of the European Union, that has run such a good Presidency also deserves to be thanked and praised by the European Parliament!
Many fine words have been spoken today about the Treaty that must be saved. Yes, indeed! Many grandiose announcements have been made about what the EU can do – or rather, what the Commission can propose and what the Member States must implement. By all means, let us have the principle of subsidiarity, but, in that case, the Member States also need to act. In that case, they also need to act in an area which is most notably lacking in the European Union: social balance. What is lacking in Europe is no longer the single market – we have enough of that. What is lacking in Europe is no longer entrepreneurial freedom – we have enough of that. What is lacking in Europe is a socially and politically responsible counterweight to this development of the single market! Europe’s citizens are aware of this: they are aware that there is always talk in the Commission of social measures, but that no such action is ever forthcoming. That is the crucial reason why Europe’s citizens are getting the jitters about this Union.
I should like to give you a small example: a neighbour of mine who lives in my constituency has a net income of EUR 1 300. He pays EUR 600 for his flat and for heating bills, so that includes energy costs – at least, it did… He then has EUR 700 left for him, his wife and his two children to live on. The day before yesterday, he told me that, this year, he has had to spend EUR 700 more on energy costs – for petrol when driving to work and for home heating costs: EUR 700 more. EUR 700 more means that, every month, he has to save EUR 60 – from the EUR 700 net he has to live on – to cover his energy costs. That is almost 10% of the amount of money available for living costs. These people are not interested in the EU Treaty, nor are they interested in the attitudes that we strike in this House. What they need is direct assistance, and they need it now!
If these people believe that shareholder value is more important to the Commission than their daily living conditions, then they will turn their backs on Europe. Therefore, I should like to say that, for us, this summit was not a success because, once again, it did not focus on these issues. As long as we are talking about institutions, and people believe that these institutions do not pay heed to what you, Mr Janša, have rightly said, namely, that Europe should be important to each and every citizen because each and every citizen should feel that he is important to the European Union, as long as people have the impression that they, with their day-to-day concerns, are not important to the EU, we will not succeed in restoring confidence in Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples