Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-11-Speech-3-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091111.13.3-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Reinfeldt, and Mrs Malmström too, of course, on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. It should be stressed that it is thanks to your determination that this was made possible; it is thanks to your sense of compromise that we finally achieved it. For there were many pessimists, including in this Chamber, who thought that we had to wait for the UK elections, or even stop waiting for the ratification of this treaty altogether. It is therefore thanks to you, and I thank you on behalf of everyone for the work that has been done. This means that almost 10 years of work are thus being crowned with success.
Finally, in order to be sure of the person’s firm belief in European integration, he or she has to believe in the Community method. It is the Community method that drives Europe forward, not governmentalism! Governmentalism is a concept of large countries, even though there are, fortunately, large countries that do not believe in this intergovernmental method. It is the Community method that the President of the Council must defend.
I have one last point to make by way of conclusion, Mr President: I naturally call for Mr Reinfeldt to find a consensus within the Council, and for the pro-European coalition that exists within this Parliament to be reflected in the nominations and the division of the various roles. Therefore, what we want is indeed a compromise, but one that also reflects the composition of this pro-European alliance that drives Europe forward within this European Parliament.
I also wish to thank you for today’s debate, for having agreed to a debate with the group chairmen on the profiles of the High Representative and the President of the Council and on the structure of the Commission, because this will be the only debate on this issue. Nothing else is really being done transparently, I must say! We read many things in the press, and it is a good job that we still have the press to learn a little of what is going on, but I believe that, in future, we will have to think about how we can bring some transparency to a process that is extremely important for the European Union.
I am going to give my opinion on the various nominations, addressing the different points in a slightly different order.
I am going to start, Mr Barroso, with the structure of the Commission, because that is the most important thing as far as Parliament is concerned. It is our responsibility, well, it is your responsibility, but it is in association with you that we must take decisions. It is we who supervise, whereas that is not the case with the President of the Council.
What we are asking you to do for the first time, in your proposals, is to use clusters when dividing up the responsibilities. What we are proposing is that you in fact create four clusters, or groups, of Commission portfolios: external action, obviously, then innovation, climate change and sustainability, followed by everything to do with financial and economic justice, and, lastly, internal affairs.
This is absolutely necessary. Why not install vice-presidents who would really take the lead, who would take responsibility for each of these groupings, which seem to result from the common sense shown within the Commission? This style of organisation would have the advantage of further improving the Commission’s work under your presidency. On the other hand, there also has to be a balance as regards female representation within the Commission. I believe that it is also a concern of yours to have candidates who offer this possibility.
With regard to the second point, Mr President, namely the post of High Representative, the most important thing is that we have someone who has the will to conduct a consistent CFSP policy and consistent Community policies, someone who also defends human rights and who makes this a part of every task that he or she carries out. And, finally, we must have someone who believes in a powerful European External Action Service. Those are the three key elements that characterise this figure. We need someone who really believes that CFSP and Community policies must be integrated – which makes perfect sense, given that that person will also be Vice-President of the Commission.
I now come of course to the third nomination, the one most spoken about, the one that is, let us say, the most attractive of all, namely the President of the Council. Mr Reinfeldt, my group has three opinions to voice on this issue. They are simply opinions, since it is the Council that will decide. Fortunately, however, Parliament can give opinions and can do so openly.
Firstly, this role must be that of a chairman, rather than a president, to use those two English words. Next, it must be performed by someone who believes in European integration. After all, to be elected Pope, one has to be a Catholic! Thus, if we now elect a President of the Council, we have to choose someone who believes in European integration, not a sceptic, as is sometimes the case …"@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples