Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-15-Speech-2-147"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090915.18.2-147"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have been asking myself in the last few days why a candidate who is so controversial across all the groups in this Parliament causes so little controversy in the Council. I believe that the answer is obvious. If I had been a head of government, I would also have elected José Manuel Durão Barroso. There could have been no better advocate of the interests of the European Council over the last five years. For this reason, your call, Mr Barroso, for cooperation with Parliament is correct, but it comes too late.
In future, the Commission must consider in advance what the effects of its measures on the social security systems in the Member States will be. We want and need a directive for public services, for services of general interest. It must not be the case that the Commission will not rest until the last public cemetery in Europe is privatised. This strategy must finally be stopped. We also need a change of direction on wage policy in Europe.
Whichever tool we choose, Mr Barroso, I expect to hear one sentence from you. You have failed to say it again today. However, I expect you to say it once. The objective of the Commission, particularly following the verdict of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the cases of Viking, Laval and Rüffert, must be equal pay for equal work in the same place for both men and women.
These are the issues relating to programmes and content which we want to discuss with you, but not only with you. It is also a question of who the Commissioners are and which portfolios they have. I do not know what has caused greater damage to Europe, you yourself or the fact that you have not prevented Mr McCreevy from doing what he was able to. We need a change of direction within the EU. This is what we will judge you on.
Therefore, we can see a connection between tomorrow’s vote and the final vote on the Commission. There is a way to get there. There is the possibility of achieving greater agreement and trust than is currently the case. However, with regard to your balance sheet for the last five years and to what you have presented us with thus far – I am not talking about what may happen in future, but what is currently on the table – I can say one thing to you with certainty: you do not have the support of my group.
One aspect of the last five years was the fact that you were constantly at the service of the governments in the European Union and that is precisely one of the reasons why there is so much scepticism about you. Many friends are more dangerous than enemies. You had hardly finished your speech with the claim: ‘I am everyone’s candidate!’, before Mr Daul said: ‘This is the candidate of the Group of the European People’s Party’. What a risk for you, Mr Barroso! What motive would another possible majority in this House have for electing you if your programme is the programme of the Group of the European People’s Party?
We could have started with a different majority. In July, we saw a possible majority form in this House on the basis of different considerations among the various groups, which Guy Verhofstadt brought together into a reform-based, pro-European majority. This resulted in the vote being postponed until September and other things would perhaps also have been possible. Unfortunately, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe did not continue to support their leader, otherwise this would have been possible. This is why we are voting today and weighing up whether what you are saying is convincing.
However, you have hardly started to concentrate on one programme before you begin doing something different. In the last few days you have been sending out your messengers on horseback with the following message: ‘
I have the majority’. It may be that you have a majority tomorrow. That could be the case. Perhaps you will have a majority tomorrow, consisting of the PPE Group and the ALDE Group, the majority of whom will vote for you, and, of course, the only group which will vote for you unanimously, immediately and without hesitation: the European Conservatives and Reformists, the party of Mr Kaczyński and his brother, the party of Mr Klaus, the Tory party. As you say, you want to achieve a majority in favour of the Treaty of Lisbon, but this is the party whose members oppose the treaty. How can you lead Europe in a pro-European way if you enter into alliances of this kind?
Furthermore, this is not only about you. It is true that it is about you, but it is also about the question: Barroso – yes or no? It is about the question of whether you gain a majority – yes or no? However, it is also about another issue. It is about the direction of Europe as a whole and that is not your decision alone. In this case, the Council and, above all, this Parliament are also involved in making the decision about the composition of the College and about the portfolios which you will make available and about the programme for the next five years that you will present.
It is about you, but it is also about the question of whether we finally manage to regulate the internal market and the financial markets and about whether we finally manage to put a stop to cheap labour in Europe, which is destroying the social cohesion of our society. It is also about whether we manage to bring about a change of direction in the European Union which the Commission, as a whole, must support.
Therefore, for us it is also a question of programme-related issues. It is not enough to reduce Europe to the question of an individual person and to the question of whether this individual person has a majority or not. We need more! We need social impact assessments. You have said that you will put them in place. We will judge you by whether you really do this, whether you are prepared to draw up regulations together with Parliament in an interinstitutional agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Moi, j’ai la majorité"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples