Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-09-Speech-1-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090309.17.1-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, the debate on the Surján report, for which I have the honour of acting as shadow rapporteur, is a political debate with a great many crucial points, especially this year. Its importance starts with the fact that it will be the only clear political debate on political priorities because, as you know, in an election year we shall not have the opportunity for another one; afterwards we shall be going straight into the new phase of the procedure, into critical technical differentiations and debates.
However, it is also a debate in a year in which – as everyone has said and as we all know as politicians and as citizens – Europe will have entered a very deep crisis, and unfortunately everything indicates that 2010, to which our report and our debate refer, will also be a year of crisis.
My first comment therefore is that it may, at the present moment in time, suffice for the report we are debating and which we will be voting on to be passed by a simple majority, but it will need to be a report which expresses the entire European Parliament and not just one political faction. It will need to be a report which expresses the anxiety of citizens and politicians, but – and here there is political disagreement between us and the rapporteur and his faction – not only with the emphasis solely on fears and anxieties, but also with prospects for the future.
We must use the budget to give citizens to understand that the budget is a political tool with which we not only reply to fears but also provide political prospects for the future. That is, I think, extremely important and the efforts of our group, both during the stage of discussion in committee and during this phase of debate in plenary, are aimed at striking a balance between this text and this political dynamic which will be emitted, so that we do not impart an image of the Apocalypse – just fear and anxiety – but open up prospects for the European Union.
I will say it again: today a simple majority may suffice and it may be that one faction can impose its line, but it is crucial, in light of the debate which will close with a reinforced majority, for the opinion of Parliament, in the final analysis, in other words, for the opinion of the citizens to be heard.
In a period of crisis, we socialists believe that Europe should respond through its budget with very specific characteristics. The response from our budget and from political Europe must, firstly, be coordinated: we must not create the impression that we are leaving each of the Member States to face this difficult situation on their own. Secondly, priority must be given to the citizens’ social protection; this social indicator, which is peculiar to the European Union, must be nurtured come what may. That is why we are trying to say certain things in the report in a different way. Finally, this response to the crisis must be such that the citizens understand it, so that it echoes the priorities of environment and energy, and says yes to an energy-independent European Union, but with all roads open, with all possibilities open, so that we can achieve precisely what we want.
There are many points on which we agree with the general feeling of this report, with the feeling of urgency, with the feeling of political necessity. However, we would stress that the response which we want to give through the budget must be a response with these characteristics.
So until we meet in September and with the hope that the Commission will take serious account of Parliament’s views."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples