Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-15-Speech-2-187"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090915.18.2-187"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"− Mr President, I will start with issues of policy, then politics if I have the time.
Regarding Mr Hughes’ questions, I think it is important to clarify those issues that are very important for your group and for me, and for our commitment to a social market economy. On the posting of workers, my commitment to a regulation is intended to address the very problem you highlighted, Mr Hughes. The implementation and interpretation issues that have created uncertainty are the problem. I remind you that a regulation is directly applicable and will take less time than overall revision of the directive. In any case, I have said that, if necessary, we can look at revising the directive.
On Laval, Commissioner Špidla, a member of your Socialist family, has, in agreement with me, conducted a very complete search for practical solutions. You must be aware that the problems you raised do not arise in all Member States. The diversity of labour law in the Member States means that a Laval situation can arise in some Member States but not in others. You, of all people, know that Member States, social partners and trade unions stick to their labour law
. We needed to fully assess the situation to make sure that the remedy was not going to create a bigger problem than the one it set out to solve. Mr Špidla has carried out that analysis, and that is why I can now propose a solution, trying to get a broad agreement in this Parliament.
On public services, Mr Hughes asked why the Commission has not yet proposed a framework directive. I will point out that my Commission has done very important legal work on clarifying the application of state aid rules to public services. That was the most important issue five years ago, and the truth is that these clarifications have taken much of the heat out of the age-old debate on public services in the internal market. I did not say that there are no more problems. On the contrary, I recognise them. I am committed to completely assessing the situation and I will not hesitate, if necessary, to go further. I have made an honest and loyal offer in discussions with your group, and I look forward to working on it with you, including on the appropriate legal instruments.
On gender balance, I am committed to this and my Commission has a record number of women. I can tell you very frankly that it was a very hard fight to get some Member States to send competent women to the Commission because they did not want to send women. As you know, the initiative on that comes from the Member States. I am committed to doing my best once again. I remember the first Delors Commission had no women and the second had only one. At one time I had nine women members of the Commission, which I believe is very important. I nominated the first woman ever as Secretary-General – the most important civil servant in the Commission – so I am very committed to that issue and I need your support there. Once again, however, please also work with your Member States so that they do not resort to this routine, because for 50 years, some Member States were incapable of making one single proposal for a woman for the Commission.
Regarding the issue of social matters, let us put this bluntly. If you want to attack the caricature of Mr Barroso, then do so, but you know very well that I have often made proposals that were refused by the Council – including, by the way, some governments from your family. Let us be honest about it. At the last European Council, I proposed that we no longer have cofinancing for the Social Fund for those countries that do not have this possibility, namely the new Member States that are having difficulties. I made that proposal. It was refused by several governments, including some whose leadership, or whose finance minister, is from your party. So I completely disagree. It is not intellectually honest to attack the Commission all the time. You are missing the target. It is easier for you, but the reality is that we are pushing hard. After that Council, I put a proposal on the table – that is now being considered by the Council – to suspend the Social Fund cofinancing rules for countries that are in difficulties. I am committed to social cohesion. How could I not be committed, coming from a country like Portugal that benefits so much from the European Union? I am committed to social and economic cohesion, and that is why I believe this caricature that some try to present is damaging Europe. I agree with what Mr Lambsdorff said before. I would prefer to have the support of the main pro-European political families, but some are excluding themselves from that. That is your choice, not mine.
I want to bring the broadest possible consensus and exclude nobody. Let us be frank: in the history of European integration, it is not only the EPP, not only the Socialists, not only the Liberals, who have made great contributions. From Lord Cockfield, a Conservative, to a Communist like Altiero Spinelli, to the Green movement, there have been many contributions to our European integration. After the election, and with this diversity of views, it is important that we work together for Europe. We need a strong Europe, but there is a contradiction there. On the one hand, you say that you want a strong Europe, you want a strong Commission, you want me to stand up to some Member States that are going national, but at the same time you say ‘We are not going to vote for you. We are going to reduce your influence. We are going to weaken you in front of the Member States’. There is a contradiction there, so let us be honest about it. If you want a strong Commission that has all the rights and initiative to defend European interests, at least give me the benefit of the doubt. We are living in difficult times and I have made an honest offer to you, a loyal offer to all Members of the Parliament, in full transparency. You cannot say that I am saying different things to different groups because this is the same programme I am presenting to all of you. Today I have added some complements and clarifications, but it is the same programme. Of course it is a compromise, but Europe only works as a compromise. Europe cannot work on fanaticism, or on dogmatism.
I thank the EPP for the support it has given me. I am really grateful for the support you have given me, but the EPP was the first to say that they do not want this because it is alone. No party has a majority alone, so we have to build a consensus in Europe. Building this consensus in Europe is critically important. Of course we keep our ideological differences and keep up the political debate, but we make an effort to have a stronger Europe. I am committed to that. Are you? That is my question."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples