Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-07-15-Speech-3-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090715.5.3-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Prime Minister Reinfeldt, ladies and gentlemen, the Swedish Presidency comes at a time of new beginnings for the institutions. It is not only this Parliament that is starting anew; Europe is in a period of transition between the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon, and – as we all know – it is a time of uncertainty in which we nevertheless need clarity with regard to economic, financial, labour market and climate policy decisions in the European Union and its Member States.
I would therefore like to state very clearly what we are expecting. My proposal, Prime Minister, was that you should not take the formalisation decision straight away, but first send your candidate to Parliament so that he can tell us what he wants to do to restore the economy, safeguard jobs, combat climate change, introduce an employment pact, an initiative for a public services directive and an initiative to improve the Posting of Workers Directive and establish a guarantee between the Commission and Parliament regarding an evaluation of the social consequences of the Commission initiatives. We could have already discussed everything with the candidate weeks ago to see whether he would receive a majority vote in this House on the basis of his proposals. Then you could have made a decision regarding formalisation.
However, you took a different route. You said ‘no we will take the formalisation decision first and then send the candidate’. I fear that this was another error and I also fear that this candidate, unless he makes a considerable effort, will not receive a majority vote in this House.
I would like to make this very clear so that what will probably be the biggest contentious issue during your Presidency is perfectly clear between us right from the start. We expect institutional clarity, we expect socio-political commitment, and I believe that we will be with you with regard to climate policy.
Mr President, just for you I have kept to my speaking time exactly. You will see that in a few seconds my six minutes will be up. You will not need to reprimand me – I knew that that was what you intended to do and I did not want to give you that pleasure.
You have talked about this and I agree with much of what you said. Climate change is, of course, the most important issue and you have given it the right level of priority. It is, of course, also the case that the jobs crisis requires an immediate and relevant solution. Therefore, we ask you during your Presidency to urge the Member States to take the investment plans and the economic recovery plans more seriously than they have done so far.
What we need above all is the safeguarding of jobs – now, not next year, as the threat to jobs is present here and now. Job security is vital for the internal stability of society. We therefore expect you to give the utmost priority to jobs and job security in whatever form, for example by combining environmental protection and industrial policy, which is a highly intelligent solution.
On the subject of job security, I would like to say this to you, Mr Reinfeldt: what seriously jeopardises jobs in Europe and is an even greater threat to social cohesion is the case law of the European Court of Justice. As you have just said, you travel a lot in Sweden and in Europe. So do we and what we hear from our citizens is that they do not want a Europe where companies move from country to country cutting wage levels. We therefore need initiatives from the European Union.
We need these initiatives as a consequence of the rulings of the European Court of Justice in the Laval, Viking, Rüffert and Luxemburg cases. These are measures that you – and you in particular, because Sweden is affected by this misguided policy, this misguided case law – need to tackle during your Presidency.
You also need to deal with another institutional issue, namely that of how the next Commission will be appointed. In this regard, I have to say that to some extent I get the general impression that not only you, but also all of your colleagues in the Council have been affected by the new institutional beginnings and the uncertainty about which Treaty we should actually be using as the basis for our actions, and that no one really knows where we are. It is a little bit like Astrid Lindgren’s Pippi Longstocking in her Villa Villekulla – I will make the world the way I want it to be. Wonderful!
If we appoint the President of the Commission on the basis of the Treaty of Nice, we will have 20 commissioners. In that case, I would like to know which country will have no commissioner. To this, the Council will naturally say ‘no, we certainly do not want to start a bloodbath behind closed doors. So, we have a wonderful solution – we will nominate the commissioner initially on the basis of the Treaty of Nice. It will take a couple of months for the Commission to be set up and by then the people of Ireland will have voted and we will have the Treaty of Lisbon. Then we can vote on everything else on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon. Great!’
We are a community based on law – or at least that is what I thought until now – in which the basis is the law in force. The law in force is the Treaty of Nice. Incidentally, there is someone who, as guardian of the Treaties, must first of all clarify which legal basis is to be used. That is the President of the Commission, but I have not heard a word from him on this matter."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples