Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-20-Speech-3-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100120.3.3-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first of all like to express my thanks for the tone and content of the speeches that have been made on behalf of the various parliamentary groups this morning.
Mr Schulz, thank you for your words. I am convinced that the principles of the European Union have a great deal to do with the principles of social democracy, and that social democracy has been a major lever behind the construction of the European idea and European ideals. I would like to affirm – despite the force of other ideas, which have had many problems in terms of application – our commitment to a vision of social cohesion, a vision in which it is essential for democracy to be social in nature.
Mr Verhofstadt, I am extremely grateful for your words. I agree with practically everything you said. With regard to coordination and the failure of Lisbon, open coordination failed. We are aware of this. We revised it in 2004, and now either we take it seriously or, in 2020, we will once again be saying that it did not work. Government requires a Community method. I do not know why some of you are surprised by the words ‘sanctions’ or ‘requirements’. There are many decisions in the workings of the European Union that involve sanctions. If directives are not complied with, if the Stability Pact is not complied with, it is natural that there should be sanctions. Also, it works. What Parliament needs to be clear about, because the European Union needs to be clear about it, is that the things that we have done together are producing good results. These are things such as the euro, the Stability Pact and the internal market, which needs to be developed and deepened, because it is one of the major levers for growth and competitiveness.
I completely agree with what you proposed regarding Copenhagen and the subsequent strategy, the new strategy. I think that it is an interesting initiative for there to be a High Authority for this issue, and it is true that Copenhagen did not produce the results that we would have wanted. It is true that Europe held a positive position, but that was not the result.
Mr Meyer, with all due respect, there are some things that we do not agree on. Of course, aside from the fact that the European Union does not have competence, for example, in fiscal policy, I did not present a conservative programme, but rather a programme of reforms. It is, above all, a programme to save time in the future, to anticipate the future, which, in my view, is the best way to move forward with a progressive programme. A progressive programme is one which sees changes, one which anticipates them and is capable of innovating. I hope and trust that the European Union will keep in step with this.
I respect your position on Morocco, but I do not share it. North Africa, especially Morocco, is of strategic importance to the European Union. Let us ensure that its modernisation process moves forward through dialogue and cooperation, and let us leave the arbitration of the Sahara conflict to the right body, which is the United Nations, which is taking steps which Spain naturally supports and respects.
Regarding Haiti, it is true that we frequently see helicopters or fighter planes promoting conflicts and bombarding areas of the planet, and they have a difficult place in our conscience. It is often difficult for our conscience and our convictions, but I must say that for me personally, seeing helicopters and marines bringing food, bringing order and saving lives is something worthy of applause.
For me personally, it is something worthy of applause. If Europe does have a rapid action force, as I hope we shall, I would be in support of Mr Barnier’s proposal. As has been said here, it will have to have civil and military components, to enable us to take effective action in the shortest possible time, with the resources that we have available.
I have taken note of your suggestions, Mrs Andreasen. Of course, I would like to confirm to the representative of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance that I agree with many of the suggestions that you made in your speech. In the whole of my speech, I talked about sustainable growth, environmentally sustainable growth. I agree with you that the electric vehicle is, or should be, something that promotes another mode of transport. I note your suggestion that in the Social Pact, the dimension of environmental sustainability should be an essential dimension, and I do, of course, have a deeply-held conviction that the future of innovation, competitiveness and productivity lies in the so-called ‘green economy’. It also lies in the potential of communication technologies and, of course, in a common or single vision of energy, as Mr Sosa Wagner said, as this is central to the future of the European Union’s existence.
Mr Kirkhope, I agree with what you said about the relevance of the personality of my compatriot, Mr Mayor Oreja, but I do not agree with you that there was any suggestion whatsoever of more control or of more centralisation in what is represented by the ideas, the initiatives and the political proposal that I put forward in this House. No, it is a political initiative so that the internal market might be bigger and cover more fields, and for there to be more competitiveness and more innovation. It is for us to join forces. Joining forces does not mean controlling, uniting does not mean leading. On the contrary, joining forces is more democratic, uniting promotes cooperation.
I will talk about the most important matters, starting with Mr Daul. Thank you for your words regarding this positive drive for economic governance, the common economic policy. You raised the question as to what is the objective of such economic governance, of such an economic policy, or, if you will pardon the expression, offered an ideological foray into the possible postulates of a social democratic idea or project. In particular, I heard you express your reticence regarding indiscriminate increases in public spending and your preference for an environment that is favourable to enterprises.
What I think would be even more negative would be for us to continue operating 27 small, centralised control systems since, in a globalised world, this would mean that the players competing with us that have internal markets and common policies, such as the United States, China and India, would have us at a disadvantage. We will see that, in a very short space of time, if we do not make this major change as Europeans, and implement this new, more Community-oriented economic policy, India or China will catch up with us in terms of production and innovation.
No, we have no interest – if you will allow me to say so, with all due respect – no interest in control or interventionism. That is not what we are debating. When we talk about 2020 and government, we are talking about our collective capacities, the sum of the synergies represented by 500 million citizens on a continent that has succeeded in generating and launching the industrial revolution, the best use of energy and the greatest scientific advances. If all these forces are joined, we will have the capacity to play a leading role, to maintain our economic model, our prosperity model and our welfare model. These are the objectives.
Of course – I completely agree – I believe that the European Union has a clear position regarding Iran. Iran must comply with international rules and the international community – and, of course, the European Union needs to assert the requirement for Iran to comply with international rules regarding nuclear proliferation. I share your concern and your feelings on this subject.
Mr Sosa Wagner, I am happy to be here with you in this forum, in this great institution, at this time and in this debate. I have taken note of your suggestions. I fully agree with what you said about energy, which was largely the focus of my speech. It is largely energy that is going to define the European Union’s capacity to be a great continent, both politically and economically. Undoubtedly, insofar as we have more energy interconnections and less energy dependency, we will be stronger economically and politically.
As we are well aware, energy has determined the course of history. It has determined how certain powers have dominated other countries. This has been through the control and use of energy but, of course, now it is also about saving energy.
The European Union promotes a policy, just as it will continue to promote for the next six months, of defending fundamental rights. It does so intelligently and by seeking to ensure progress is made where we have the expectation and the hope that it is possible. It does so where we feel that offering our hand is better than closing the door. We will therefore maintain the summit with our neighbour, Morocco. We will, at all times, promote the defence of human rights.
All in all, Mr President, I am extremely grateful for what has been said by all the spokespeople for the different parliamentary groups. I would like to express my respect for all their positions. I am taking note of the more direct, specific issues that have been raised in relation to my country, which I represent with the utmost pride given what we have achieved in the 25 years during which we have been part of the European Union. I also represent my country with the utmost humility, because we are here to share, and I think that the best way of sharing is to come with humility, to come prepared to unite, to join together and to defend the great ideal of the European Union together.
I would like to clarify something. It has little to do with my speech, but a great deal to do with my political convictions. I am a strong supporter of the Stability Pact. I am a strong supporter of fiscal balance throughout the cycle. This is so much the case that in its first four years, before the economic and financial crisis, the government of which I was and still am the President had a surplus in its public accounts and decreased its deficit to 32% of GDP. I am therefore a convert. Deficit and surplus are tools, depending on the economic cycle. Now I, like the majority of European governments, have been in favour of responding with a fiscal stimulus that results in a public deficit, and public spending has increased slightly because private investment slowed down. This is not an ideological problem. It is a problem of reality. The financial crisis meant that private investment and private credit froze and was halted. It seems reasonable that the only way to compensate in some way for this slowdown in the economy was through public stimulus. This needs to be corrected, as far as circumstances allow, and we need to return to the Stability Pact.
Like other countries, my country is going to have, and in fact it does have, a large public deficit. I can also assure you, however, that my country is going to fulfil its commitment to the Commission for 2013 and return to the path of stability implied by a 3% deficit. In order to achieve this, as the Commission knows, we have an austerity plan, a strict fiscal consolidation plan. It is strict in terms of our public accounts, and we will put it into practice.
I agree that we need to create an environment that is favourable to enterprises, economic activity, initiative and competition. In fact, in my speech, I strongly advocated a common energy market and a European digital market. This means nothing more than promoting economic freedom, initiative and trade between Europeans in the field of energy and promoting competition because it reduces prices and promotes technological innovation. In the digital field, which I have focused on a great deal here today, we are largely betting on the future, insofar as we promote e-commerce and the transfer of all the products being generated currently in communication technologies, which represent a growing percentage of gross domestic product.
Our proposal, and our plan, therefore, is for the 2020 Strategy to favour a Europe without trade barriers, to favour competition, innovation and an entrepreneurial environment in Europe. What governments also need to do, as far as possible, is not to correct the environments behind business activity, but they do need to intervene in order to correct the environments that have favoured speculation, either financial speculation or property speculation. This is something different. Sometimes, due to particular ideas, speculation is promoted, intentionally or unintentionally, in the financial field or the property field. Spain has been a victim of this, as have some citizens, not only British citizens. This is the will of the government, within its scope of competence. You should be aware that in Spain, there is a distribution of competence, which lies not only with the central government, but also with the autonomous communities and the councils. There are, of course, laws and judicial proceedings, but I am very aware of what you have said, and we will therefore act.
Therefore: an economic environment that is favourable to business activity, initiative and innovation, but which is not favourable to financial and property speculation.
Of course, I am in favour of reasonable fiscal pressure, and I do not represent any opposing model, because while I have been in government, I have reduced tax on businesses, income tax on workers and personal taxation. I am in favour, on the basis of an interventionist perspective, of what is represented by its philosophy on taxation and the fiscal position.
Finally, I want to say to Mr Daul that I note the position of his group, which is the majority group in this House, regarding the role of the President of the Council – the permanent President – and of Parliament. I think this is an important matter. I am in favour of all the European institutions, the great European institutions, having a fluid relationship with Parliament. Of course, insofar as we want to make Europe bigger, we need to move towards a more powerful Parliament. That is my opinion."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples