Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-10-21-Speech-3-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091021.2.3-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mrs Malmström, Mr Barroso, before I look at the institutional issues, I would like to make a brief remark about Copenhagen.
I know that we must find a compromise. However, you must be aware that we – together with Mr Brok, the rapporteur – fully agree with the President of the Commission that we need a clear structure. The decisive factor for us is once again parliamentary control, including control over the External Action Service and the foreign policy drawn up by the High Representative, although, of course, we acknowledge the role of the Council. As you were once one of us and have fought for this in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, we see you as a fellow combatant in this area. I hope that we can implement the Treaty of Lisbon in the way in which it was intended in order to bring about more democracy, more parliamentary control and more efficient foreign policy.
You are completely right, Mrs Malmström, and Mr Barroso has reinforced this, that one of the essential decisions which we now have to make concerns Copenhagen. We need binding objectives, not general statements. This will not be easy to achieve, because the Americans have not yet completed their legislative process. We will also have to take some decisions after Copenhagen during the course of next year. However, there must be binding objectives in place at the end of the process. That is absolutely essential.
Secondly, as far as the financial markets and the economic situation are concerned, the bonuses which are currently being paid are both outrageous and provocative. This applies particularly to America, but it will also be the case in Europe. This is not the central problem, but it demonstrates how many managers still do not understand what the new regulation of the financial markets involves and what responsibilities they have to the population as a whole. Mrs Malmström, I admit that you are right that the question of employment policy in particular must be given priority. It is not just about retaining the stimuli which were put in place as part of the economic recovery plan. It is also about introducing new measures to stimulate employment.
Yesterday, the President of the Commission gave a positive response to Stephen Hughes’s request. I am very pleased that we have at least been able to reach a consensus that employment policy must lie at the heart of our activities over the next few years.
Now I would like to say something about Lisbon. Firstly, with regard to the lack of a signature from Václav Klaus, I am assuming that the constitutional court will make a positive judgment. I find it unacceptable that the Beneš Decrees are being used in this way, that this issue may perhaps be reopened and that the signature may be delayed. I would like to remind my fellow members from the Czech Republic that before their accession, we commissioned a report on the Beneš Decrees – Mrs Malmström, you will remember, because at that time you were one of us – which investigated whether the Beneš Decrees presented an obstacle to the accession of the Czech Republic. The majority opinion at the time was that they did not. The decrees do not have a different impact now, but they did have an impact at the time that they were drawn up. When we say that the Beneš Decrees were not an obstacle to the accession of the Czech Republic, this means that it is unacceptable now to use the same decrees in order to refuse to sign the Treaty of Lisbon. We must make our opinions quite clear in this regard.
The Treaty of Lisbon has two main objectives: on the one hand, more democracy in Europe, which includes more parliamentary democracy, in particular in the European Parliament
you do not want that because you are not in favour of more democracy – and, on the other hand, more efficiency. Mrs Malmström, it is now a very important task for you to ensure in the next few weeks that the institutional issues and the staffing issues do not stand in the way of this. Yesterday, Mr Barroso rightly said that we need a Council President over whom we have no influence, but who can work well with the Commission – and I would add here with the Parliament – and who believes that the community method lies at the heart of the decision-making process. That is very important. We do not need a Council President who shows off, dazzles everyone and tries to pull the wool over our eyes. We need a Council President who can work with us effectively.
Of course, we need an External Action Service, not only for the reasons mentioned by the President of the Commission and to provide effective regulations concerning unity and a common foreign policy, but also for reasons of parliamentary control. It is not acceptable for items suddenly to be removed from the Treaty of Lisbon, which is intended to give more parliamentary control, with the result that we ultimately have less parliamentary control, if the External Action Service is to be completely independent."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples