Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-15-Speech-2-233"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090915.18.2-233"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Madam President, I would like to begin with a procedural issue. I wish to say, in particular to the non-attached Members, that I did not go to see their group because they did not invite me. It is as simple as that. Of course, I have strong differences of opinion with some of these Members and with others too, but I went to see all of the groups who invited me, all of the legitimately formed groups. I went there for a democratic debate. I like democratic debate. Let us be clear on that.
I am well aware that this is an interesting ideological debate, but I believe that we have the answer in Europe. We need an internal market – it is our strength – and, at the same time, a high level of social cohesion. This is a European creation; it is a contribution. In the quotation I included at the start of my document, I quoted a great European contemporary historian, Tony Judt, who lectures at New York University. He said: ‘The United States may have the most powerful army in the world, China may sell cheaper goods, but only Europe has a model that can serve as an inspiration to the rest of the world’.
The 21st century could well be Europe’s century. I believe that. I believe that we can manage this globalisation not by force but with inspiration. We have a social market economy that is not the property of the Christian Democrats, the Social Democrats or the Liberals. It was created by Europe, particularly after the Second World War: not only the European integration process, but also this social market economy aimed at combining free markets, open markets.
Europe is the world’s biggest export power. We Europeans must therefore reject protectionism and, at the same time, must promote the European social dialogue model, the European social security model. When I hear certain ‘declinists’ – the ‘crisis-lovers’ – say that it is now the Americans and the Chinese who are controlling everything, I say to them: be that as it may, but what is President Obama doing? President Obama is currently attempting – I wish him well – to introduce a national health care system, which we have practically everywhere in Europe, with some differences. It is the Americans who are now taking inspiration from the European model. What are the Chinese doing? They are now considering – with the additional aim of boosting demand – the introduction of a social security system, and I believe that they will have this system, because there will be a rise in prosperity in that country, and this rising prosperity in China is good for the entire world.
What are the Americans and other major powers doing today? They are starting to talk to us about combating climate change. I clearly recall that, when we spoke with them before, the Americans flatly refused to make any kind of target-related commitment in the fight against climate change.
As you can see, I cannot be as pessimistic as some of those who have spoken here today. Of course, we have problems in Europe, consistency problems. In terms of political will, we must work harder to achieve more consistency. We also have a very clear problem, a social problem, which is the most serious of all: the rise in unemployment. Let us be clear, however: it is not Europe, it is not the European Commission that created this financial crisis. You all know where this crisis came from. Immediately after, we reacted. We reacted with concrete proposals. I was in the United States with the French President, when it was the French Presidency, to propose the launch of this G20 process to the US President. It was Europe that instigated this response.
I said at Camp David that just as open societies need the rule of law, legal rules, in the same way, the markets also need rules in order to be legitimate, credible and ethical. That is the European position.
I believe in fact that we should be proud of the proposals we have made. They are on the table. I hope that they will be adopted, and we will see as we go along whether an additional effort is needed.
On the subject of the environment, I believe that this Commission’s track record is well known. Someone said that biodiversity is not in there. Re-read my document and you will see that it is in there. Furthermore, one Member of this House applauded our measures to protect bluefin tuna, and I thank them for that. I believe that we have some good credentials there.
With regard to Mrs Beňová’s question about fundamental rights, it is precisely in order to give this new sign of commitment that I decided to create – and I would add that the proposal came from the European Parliament, even though I was already convinced on the matter – the post of commissioner responsible for fundamental rights and individual freedoms. The commissioner will also deal with the issue of minorities, of course, and he or she will be able to report to the Committee on Petitions, which was mentioned here.
I also believe that, as in the national systems, where there is normally a minister for justice and a minister for the interior, we should have a commissioner in charge of justice, fundamental rights and freedoms. There will be another commissioner – because we must also be serious about this, we must also see that there are problems to do with insecurity in Europe and that there are things that we can do together with the added value of Europe – who will also look at other issues, but always with the same spirit: the spirit of security, with full respect shown for individual freedoms and with full respect shown for fundamental rights. That, once again, is what makes Europe.
I shall try to respond quickly to a large number of questions. Moreover, I can see that, at times, Members are no longer here to listen to me, but I am going to make an effort all the same.
Someone spoke of Guantánamo. I was one of the first, if not the first, politician in office within a government to call on the US President – this was during the Austrian Presidency – to close Guantánamo. I said this publicly because I believe that we Europeans are against an anti-terrorism campaign that does not respect fundamental rights, as that is how moral authority is lost. On the subject of fundamental rights, I believe that we may have certain disagreements, but that there are no fundamental disagreements with some of the Members who raised this issue. I myself do not need advice from anyone on this issue. At the age of sixteen, I had already taken to the streets of my country to fight against a dictatorship, against the colonial system. Therefore I do not need anyone’s advice on how to show commitment to fundamental rights. Thank you, anyway.
With regard to the question on Northern Ireland – thank you, Mrs Dodds: it is true that we have made a great – discreet – effort for Northern Ireland. We set up a special working group and, back when a dialogue had not yet been established between the parties, we helped to bring about this reconciliation.
With regard to the question put by Mr López Aguilar, yes, I believe that now is the time for a new social ambition. That is obvious. We have an unemployment problem that is much greater than before. If you look at the statistics, the truth is that, until the financial crisis, employment was rising everywhere. The Lisbon Strategy, which some criticise, was actually heading in the right direction, overall. There was job creation and growth in Europe. It is just with the financial crisis that we have seen the reverse of the trend in most countries, including your own, Spain. It is the global financial crisis that has put us in a different position. So, now, in this state of social anxiety – not only are there people who are unemployed but there are others who are liable to become so – it is obvious that we must make a social investment. That is why I have called for a new social ambition. I believed that it would be possible to unite the large majority of Parliament around this priority, and I still believe it.
Mrs in ’t Veld told me that I had not convinced her. You are very difficult to convince, Mrs in ’t Veld. I will do my best, but I will tell you one thing: I will always do my best, not just to convince you, but because I genuinely believe in fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees. I believe that the Commission has a role in this matter, not only in terms of legislation, but also regarding the signals we send out. I can tell you that, whenever there is a problem in the world, be it Guantánamo or when I meet with Mr Putin, each time I ask him: ‘What is happening with Mrs Politkovskaya’s killers? How is it possible that a system such as the Russian system, which has the greatest security system in the world, never finds the killers of journalists?’ I put the question to President Putin, just as I am currently putting questions to the prime ministers, including even the Chinese Prime Minister, when I speak to him, and just as I am always asking questions about human rights. I am even asking the Japanese Prime Minister why Japan is now carrying out capital punishment again, when there was a moratorium.
Therefore, the Commission is important, not only through legislation, but also through the signals sent out by the Commission and the Commission President, such as the time of the crisis concerning the cartoons in Denmark, where I unequivocally defended and upheld the right to freedom of expression. I believe, in fact, that we can find a fundamental line of agreement on this.
Mr Abad asked some very practical questions, and I would say to him that I support his suggestions and I believe that they are important. I believe that we need an industrial base in Europe. We do not want relocation, but it is important for this industrial base to adapt to the new constraints of global competition and, above all, to the major challenges of climate change and of more sustainable growth. I believe that we have the means to achieve this. That is why I am proposing that, in future, more resources be put into this at European level.
With regard to the budget-related question that someone asked, let us try, above all, to reach a consensus on the main principles. I believe that it would be a mistake to start by talking about the amounts for the future budget. That would cause divisions. We must first see where there is European added value and, afterwards, decide what the priorities will be. However, I believe that research, innovation and cohesion policy clearly must be important priorities, especially when the new generations are considered. For the benefit of the youngest member of the French delegation, I hope that the young people of this Parliament will support this movement.
Someone asked me a question about the global financial tax, about the tax on financial movements. If it is global, I support it, obviously. I think that it would be an excellent idea but, in any case, let us be clear: I see no point in driving out the financial services that we have now in Europe, whether they be in London, Frankfurt or Paris. We are world leaders when it comes to financial services. What is the point of handing over the leadership to Dubai? I do not see what the point would be. Let us be clear on that. However, if there were a global tax on financial transactions, I think that would be an excellent idea. I believe that there are already quite a number of reasons in favour of that: to prevent, for example, starvation in the world, for it is scandalous what is happening in the 21st century; to help Europe achieve the Millennium Goals; and to fight for more solidarity in Europe. You may not know, but I proposed to the Council that we increase a facility that we have within Europe to provide food aid, because there are poor and newly poor people in Europe, but it was rejected. Those are many reasons, if you will, for a tax, provided that it is genuinely global and that it does not undermine Europe’s competitiveness.
To conclude, I would like to say something very important to you. Some have said: ‘Why should we elect you? You are the only candidate. Is that democratic?’ I myself have very often wondered why I am the only candidate. Frankly, I believe that it was wrong for me to be the only candidate, because, let us be clear, as I am the only candidate, I have been the only one attacked for all this time, the only one criticised. Every time you compare me with your ideal candidate, I lose, obviously. I lose to an ideal candidate. I lose to an ideal candidate from each group. Yet Europe is not built with ideal candidates. Europe is an exercise in responsibility. I believe that there has been no other candidate for the simple reason that the support needed to be a candidate was lacking. That is the reason. A fair few names were mentioned, but I succeeded in achieving a consensus and I am proud of that, because building Europe today, as we have seen in the debate, is – as all of you will admit – an extremely difficult and extremely hard exercise. Europe is very diverse. There are many constraints and many priorities, and so I am proud to be the candidate that has been supported by the party that won the elections, to be the candidate that has received the support of democratically elected Heads of State or Government, from across the political spectrum, and I do not see that as negative. That said, I am no one’s secretary-general, and the Commission is an independent institution. I can assure you of that. The Commission over which I preside and over which I will preside if I have your backing will be independent in its uncompromising defence of the European general interest.
I fully understand, as Mrs Estrela and others have said, that the support of those who will be willing to back me is not a blank cheque. I am grateful to all those who have supported me; I cannot name them all. Some of them are still here. I am grateful to you. Your support is not a blank cheque. I think highly of Parliament.
I will begin with the issue of bonuses, which was the last question. I would draw your attention to the fact that, at the end of 2004, the Commission – my Commission – made a recommendation on excessive remuneration, not only in banks, but also in the economic system in general. Unfortunately, at that time, no one paid attention to our recommendation.
Some say: ‘You are too close to the governments’. You forget one thing: before becoming Prime Minister, I was leader of the opposition, and before becoming leader of the opposition, I sat on the benches. I was elected for the first time to the Portuguese parliament when I was 29 years old. I am a politician; I am not a technocrat or a bureaucrat. I defend parliaments and I want to engage with you in this debate.
Therefore, your demands can help me and can help the Commission to do better. This is what I shall aim to do if I have your support.
I am glad that this issue of bonuses and excessive remuneration is now becoming more of a priority and I hope that we will be able to find a solution, on the basis, I might add, of the proposals that we have submitted to the Council. They are on the table: a recommendation, but also a binding part of the Directive on capital requirements for banks.
Many questions focused on energy security: those of Mr Saryusz-Wolski, Mr Marinescu and others. Energy security was, in fact, one of the main priorities of this College, and I also intend to include it in the priorities of the next Commission, if I have your Parliament’s consent, since it is to the Commission that Europeans look, and not just the Europeans of the Union. When there was the problem between Russia and Ukraine, President Putin decided to call me specifically to inform me of that problem, and you know just how much time and energy we at the Commission, together with other partners, have put into trying to find a solution to a problem that concerned Russia and Ukraine but which has had consequences for European consumers.
I personally am very committed to these issues. That is why, I might add, we launched the interconnections programme in the Baltic states, and that is why it was the Commission that broke the deadlock on the Nabucco issue – and let us be clear, it was completely deadlocked. I shall therefore include these issues among the Commission’s main priorities, but there is, in fact, resistance to the creation of a real internal energy market. I hope that during the next term, with your support, we are going to overcome this resistance that – let us be frank and sincere – does still exist, in order to establish a real integrated energy market in Europe.
You can count on me at the Commission to be uncompromising in my defence of the European interest. What is more, I believe that this problem of energy security is also crucial to the issue of combating climate change.
I will say it again, in particular for the benefit of the Members of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance: one can always be more ambitious but, frankly, I believe that we should welcome the fact that the European Union, acting on the basis of a Commission proposal, is spearheading the fight against climate change. It is clear that, subsequently, we would not have had the agreement of all the Member States were it not for the work – and I want to make this point – of Mrs Merkel’s presidency, and then of Mr Sarkozy’s presidency, since they worked to achieve this too, and it is only right to acknowledge it. All the Member States made an effort, but it was on the basis of an ambitious proposal by the Commission that we were able to conduct this fight against global warming, and I am very much counting on your efforts so that we can keep Europe in the vanguard of this fight.
With regard to the social issues, I have already said my piece: I have already given some very concrete undertakings on the issues relating to the posting of workers and on the problems concerning public services. I will be willing to work with you on these principles that I have mentioned and that I have spelt out very clearly today: against social dumping, for the social market economy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples