Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-24-Speech-2-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080624.3.2-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we have spoken a lot about listening to citizens, and I am very happy that at least some of you have stayed here to listen to myself and Prime Minister Janša, so that we can respond to the very interesting remarks that were made during this debate.
Therefore, let us fight unnecessary bureaucracy and let us respect the principle of subsidiarity; but let us do it not against European institutions but because we want to be closer to our citizens.
During the debate mention was made of the Soil Directive. It was presented as an example of over-regulation by Brussels. Let me remind you that in November 2007 it was this Parliament that voted by a large majority at first reading in favour of the Soil Directive. So what do you want? If someone asked me as Commission President to ignore the vote of the European Parliament, I could not do it. So whether this directive becomes law is now in the hands of the co-legislators. I would like all pro-Europeans not to hide behind the Commission if the majority in the European Parliament votes differently to what some of you would like.
The same applies to the Return Directive. I heard the Chairman of one Group criticising the Return Directive, just adopted by this Parliament, and presenting it as one of the problems of legitimacy of the European Union. Let us be frank: if the European institutions themselves call into question the legislation that they themselves have adopted, then we really have a problem regarding support by our citizens.
This is important because at national level when a political party or a political leader does not agree with a particular decision on legislation, it does not question the legitimacy of the nation, of the state or of the national democracies, but I find very often in Europe that when some politicians do not agree with a particular policy they try to call the whole legitimacy of our European process into question. This is unacceptable and it is not an honest way if we want to go ahead with our European project.
The same applies to the caricature of social and liberal. We are now advancing the debate in the European Council of whether or not to address the immediate concerns of the most vulnerable people in our society. The response of the Commission was clear: let us do it. There are the people who are most in need and we need to act for them now and, if there are some European instruments, then let us use them, adding to what we have at national level. I believe it is possible to have both a structural response and an immediate response. I believe it is possible to be in favour of both market and social policies.
I believe that sometimes the European camp is divided unnecessarily by an artificial division between those who favour more market orientation and those who favour more social orientation. I think that is quite possible to be in favour of an internal market, against state interventionism that distorts competition but, at the same time, to be against ultra-liberalism that distorts solidarity. It is perfectly possible to do both things at a European level and not to deepen ideological differences which, if we do not handle them correctly, will only help populists at the extremes in their stance against the European project.
We must have a debate on those issues if we want to go on with confidence with our European project. I believe that allocating blame to the European institutions is pointless and self-defeating for all those who believe in the European ideal.
Let me tell you also very frankly that, as has often happened in the history of European integration, every time there is a setback some national politicians use it to try to reduce the role of the European institutions and to try to weaken the role of the Commission. Some even suggest that the Commission should not speak out for what it believes in. I will not accept that. The Commission will stand firm for the competences of the Community and for Community matters. We will stand against any attempt to reduce European competence, because I really believe that the problem is not that we have too many European competences but that those politicians who should be defending European ideals and the European project lack conviction.
My plea is that we stand up for our values: that all those working here in the European institutions in Brussels – proudly in Brussels – or in our capitals or all over Europe should unite in a spirit of partnership between all our institutions and the Member States to explain why more than ever we need Europe. Let us not apologise for defending the Lisbon Treaty that tries to reinforce accountability, democracy, the coherence and effectiveness of our Union. Let us tell our European citizens with courage that the ‘no’ vote in Ireland did not solve the problem that the Lisbon Treaty was intended to solve, that there is tough competition out there, that the world will not wait for Europe and that the world needs a Europe that is more than ever present, not only for the benefit of its citizens but also for the promotion of its values.
Naturally, the debate was also about the conclusions and the consequences of the ‘no’ vote in Ireland.
Let me make a point that I think will be very important for the future: let us not fall into the trap of Europe bashing – on bashing ourselves as European institutions. That would be a real mistake. No one will gain from that.
In fact, all the available data – all the objective surveys – show that in general the citizens of Europe have more trust in the European institutions – including the Commission – than in most national governments and certainly most political parties at national level. Therefore, simply to identify the problem as a problem of confidence in the European institutions is intellectually dishonest.
By the way, according to our data and to what Prime Minister Cowen told us about Irish voters, Irish voters did not vote against Europe. In fact, 80% of ‘no’ voters said they were in favour of Europe. They may have some criticisms of this or that aspect but, according to the Irish authorities and to all our available data, this cannot be seen just as a vote against Europe.
Therefore, let us not put the blame on Europe. Let us be modest; let us understand what our shortcomings are; let us accept the criticism; let us make our work better in Brussels or in Strasbourg, but let us not simply put the blame on Europe and let us try to understand that today the responsibilities of power – be it at European, national, regional or local level – are huge and that we have to face this with a sense of modesty but not giving in to populistic, easy arguments.
The image of the European Union is determined by the decisions taken – not by proposals made. Decisions are taken by the Council and the European Parliament – not by the Commission. What hurts Europe very often is the caricature of its decision-making; what hurts Europe is the attacks on the European institutions, made sometimes even by some very committed Europeans; what hurts Europe is very often the caricature not only of our institutions but also of our policies.
Let me just give you an example. You have all heard the story of the straight cucumbers. It is very popular in Germany and in some other countries. For ages Europe has been ridiculed for prescribing the marketing standards for cucumbers. Well, my Commission has proposed to get rid of them, in a review including 35 other marketing standards for food and vegetables that we find are unnecessary. Our idea is to retain just 10 out of 35 of those standards. But guess what? When we sounded out the Member States, a clear majority was against this change. That is the reality. It is not really Brussels nannying the Member States is it?
Well, we will not stop; we will put forward the proposal to get rid of these unnecessary standards. Then it will be time to put up or shut up with regard to bureaucracy coming from Brussels. If there is one thing worse than the bureaucracy from Brussels it is 27 national bureaucracies coming to Brussels to ask for the reinforcement of legislation at Brussels level."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples