Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-03-Speech-3-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081203.12.3-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, firstly I would like to thank all the contributors for your very constructive, relevant and interesting comments. There are two specific questions that I would like to answer initially and then perhaps I will focus on the Treaty of Lisbon.
The excellent report that we have now received from the Irish Parliament’s special sub-committee makes a very important contribution to clarifying these concerns and also outlining possible options for resolving them. When asked, I told them that my impression was that there was a lot of goodwill around Europe to help to address the concerns of the Irish. The Commission intends to do what it can to work with the Parliament and the Irish authorities to improve communication on Europe in Ireland. We are working on a memorandum of understanding to make sure that we can start doing this immediately, with the Government and with the people in Ireland.
However, I also made it clear that my impression from talking to different Member States was that there was no appetite for re-opening an institutional settlement that has taken seven years of long and arduous negotiations to reach a compromise, and that the 25 Member States that have now ratified the Treaty, many of whom had previously ratified the Constitution – and two by referendums, remember – are not going to want to start that process again. With the European Parliament elections coming up, it is time that we stopped talking about institutions and started talking about EU policies which matter to citizens and how to solve these big challenges and problems.
Next week’s European Council should give us a clear road map to take this process forward with a sense of urgency. I am confident that it will provide the collective impetus necessary to achieving full ratification of the Treaty. We will try to contribute to this in the best way we can as a Commission.
Mr Jouyet has already mentioned the fact – and this is in response to Mr von Wogau – that the Council will adopt the report on five years of the European Security Strategy. May I add to what Mr Jouyet said: of course the Treaty of Lisbon would also help by greatly strengthening and simplifying the institutional structure in this area. This will be an opportunity for the Council to look at how to help guarantee the coherence of all our instruments and the balance between hard and soft security. That was in response to Mr von Wogau.
Mr Bernard Wojciechowski asked about the Eastern Partnership. We can report from today’s Commission meeting that we adopted a proposal on the Eastern Partnership, including a reinforced financing of activities, which covers economic integration, mobility issues, social and economic development policy, cooperation platforms, free trade and student mobility – all of these elements that are in this Eastern Partnership. I welcome the fact that we have now discussed and adopted such a plan.
This debate has shown that this is an important moment for the European Union. It has illustrated the whole concept of sustainability. Sustainable development means that we cannot put ourselves in debt and then ask future generations to come up with a solution. We cannot send problems with regard to pollution, waste and environmental or climate change to future generations to solve for us. We cannot create social problems for the next generation to sort out for us. The whole definition of sustainable development is the fact that we have to look at ways to satisfy our needs in a way that does not impact on future generations and their wish to satisfy their needs.
We have three central and linked issues to resolve in the next month – which have clearly come to the fore: the Economic Recovery Plan, where decisive EU action can have a real impact on Europe’s social and economic well-being over the coming year; the climate and energy package, which will put Europe on track to lead the world in defining a credible, achievable path to a low-carbon future; and the Treaty of Lisbon, where we need to set out the way forward to achieving a Treaty so that Europeans can enjoy the benefits of a more democratic and efficient European Union.
I fully trust my colleagues Commissioner Almunia and Commissioner Dimas to discuss the Recovery Plan – as so many of you have commented on that – and the climate/energy package in more detail. I understand that will happen later today and tomorrow morning, so I will make just a few more comments about the Treaty of Lisbon.
I think that these two issues are a perfect illustration of why we need the Treaty of Lisbon. Climate change and the economic crisis require a European Union that can make the right decisions quickly, efficiently and democratically. If Europe is to do the ‘heavy lifting’ to deliver such fundamental change, it needs the right tools to do that job.
The commitment of this Parliament and of the Commission to the Treaty of Lisbon has always been clear. We wanted a real step forward for Europe, more powers for this directly elected Parliament. For national parliaments, we wanted a greater say for citizens, streamlined institutions and more clarity on who does what in Europe. Delaying all of this is of course a disappointment, but it should not distract us from the central objective of seeing the Treaty of Lisbon in force. That means that we hope to be able to pursue the goal of full ratification and it means winning the case in Ireland.
I was in Ireland myself last month and tried to explain why I think we need the Treaty. I also set out to understand why Irish voters had reservations. What I heard was very much in tune with the polling evidence that we have seen. On some issues – like taxation and defence issues – voters had concerns with no real basis in the Treaty. On others, like the issue of the Irish Commissioner, they took a worst-case scenario arising from the implementation of the Treaty. Many felt that information was insufficient or unclear and that a ‘no’ vote was seen as the safest option."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples