Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-20-Speech-3-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100120.3.3-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in fact, two priorities for the Spanish Presidency. I believe you also have, in fact, two priorities. However many issues are raised to be solved in the coming six months, there are, we believe, two main issues.
I myself suggest that we adopt a strategy based on three components. The first of these components is for the European Union to appoint a climate change ‘tsar’ with a mandate to negotiate on behalf of the 27 Member States, unlike what happened in Copenhagen, where we had the Danish Prime Minister, the Swedish Prime Minister, the President of the Commission, Mr Sarkozy, Mrs Merkel, yourself, Mr Brown.
That meant that there were at least eight European political leaders who wanted to negotiate. There was not enough room around the table though! There was scarcely room for Mr Obama even. There was the South African, the Brazilian, the Indian, the Chinese, then Mr Obama, and on top of that, the eight Europeans. How do you expect to agree a position and be heard by others in such circumstances?
Let us do like the WTO then; it works for the WTO. There, there is someone who is in charge, who negotiates for the whole of the European Union, and who produces results. We need the same thing at European level if we are to avoid a repeat of what happened in Copenhagen.
Moreover, we must, I believe, be realistic. We must be realistic on this matter. We need a trilateral agreement between the United States, Europe and China. That must be the aim. All of those strategies that consist of saying ‘yes, we will see’, which have no allies in the United Nations, will count for nothing in tomorrow’s world. Tomorrow’s world is one of empires, and we must be an empire.
This means that we must be at the table. With whom? With the United States and with China. It is we three who need to reach an agreement; let us not start dreaming about rallying I know not how many countries around a programme. At the end of the day, we have to create an alliance with the United States. It is with the United States that we must find common ground. Such common ground can be found, in my view, in the emissions trading mechanism. We have that, and they will follow us if we can reach an agreement on it. That will give us common ground in order, together, to negotiate with the Chinese.
Those, Mr President, are my two major priorities for the Spanish Presidency, and I am convinced that, with his tenacity, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero will make this a very important and very effective Presidency.
First of all, there is the post-Lisbon EU 2020 Strategy. I believe, in any case, that this name is more appropriate as, at the end of the day, the population had ceased to differentiate between the Treaty of Lisbon and the Lisbon strategies. This is, therefore, already a major advance. However we, in this House, have to be serious.
The fundamental question is not about knowing whether there is a desire to reduce unemployment or to increase spending on innovation. We all agree on this. We agreed in 2000, we will agree in 2010, and we will agree again in 2020 and 2030. No, the question concerns a different issue: in short, are the Council and the Member States ready to change the method that failed in the Lisbon Strategy? I am referring here to the open method of coordination, a wonderful expression, meaning that it is the Member States, not the Union, that decides, and that all that one does is compare results from the various Member States.
It is as if the Union has become the OECD. That is the reality: publishing one document after another, after another.
Already, Mr President, your initial declarations have encouraged me greatly: ‘yes, we are going to change’, you say. Things must change; we need sticks, we need carrots. Where needed, we must have sanctions. Above all, though, do not let yourself be discouraged – I say this frankly, both to you and to Mr Moratinos – by the German Minister for Economic Affairs, who did not hesitate for one second to criticise your proposals.
It must be a good omen, though! One cannot, on the one hand, say, for example, that Greece is not making enough effort, that other countries are not making enough effort and, at the same time, fail to provide the Commission and the European Union with the resources and the instruments that they need to intervene. It is either one thing or the other. One cannot have it both ways.
I encourage you therefore to continue on this path, and I can tell you that the whole of this Parliament supports you, together with the Commission, as you confront those who continue to dismiss the need to intensify this Lisbon method.
Well, as for my second priority, it is to attempt to find another strategy for the issue of climate change, post-Copenhagen. We must acknowledge that our approach failed. We must say it, we must recognise it. There is no sense in saying ‘yes, but we were right, it was the right method’, and so on. No, it was not the right method. The strategy was bad, because the result is bad. Therefore, the strategy has to change."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples