Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-16-Speech-3-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091216.3.3-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would just like to answer some of the concrete questions from the Members of Parliament who are still here.
For instance, Mr Severin spoke about economic, social and territorial cohesion, and I want to underline the point he made. In fact, in the first exchange of views which we had in the European Council on the future European Union 2020 Strategy, it was agreed – see point 18 of the conclusions – that every effort should be made to ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion as well as gender equality. I think it is important to have this from the beginning of the discussion of the European Union 2020 Strategy. Of course, the emphasis is on competitiveness and the need to respond to the global challenges which we are now facing, but we should do that in conjunction with promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European Union. This is going to be very important, not only for the definition of this strategy, but also for the next financial perspectives.
Another concrete point regarding the European supervisory authorities was raised, namely by Mr Karas and also by Ms Dati. Let me be clear on this matter. We very much welcome the fact that the European Council was able to reach a unanimous agreement. Frankly, some time ago, it would have been inconceivable to have all the Member States agreeing on a text on financial supervision at European level. Having said this, while I respect the delicate nature of some of the issues addressed by our proposals, I believe the Commission’s text has been diluted a bit too much. The Commission, in its proposal, had foreseen a simple and workable fiscal safeguard clause, precisely because this is a very sensitive matter. Anyway, I regret the removal of the proposed powers of the authorities to address decisions directly to individual financial institutions in two out of the three situations where the Commission had proposed it.
I regret the fact that the issue of emergency situations has been politicised by giving the Council the responsibility of declaring that an emergency exists, and I also regret that the potential scope of direct supervision by the European supervisory authorities has been limited to credit-rating agencies only. I hope the European Parliament will reinforce and rebalance the regulations in these areas in the next negotiating phase.
Coming to the issue of Copenhagen, and let me be clear about this: it was very important that the European Council confirmed the previous commitments saying that we are ready to move to a 30% reduction by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and that developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respected capabilities.
We will continue to assess mitigation plans from other countries and take this decision at the appropriate time in Copenhagen. In fact, during the European Council, I had mentioned the possibility of having some modulation in our offer, namely the possibility of constructing some pathways beyond 2020. This discussion is not just about 2020; it is for after 2020. So we should have some flexibility on the pathways that we can define after 2020. It is in this spirit that we go to Copenhagen not only to achieve the most ambitious agreement but also to have a real global agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples