Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-09-Speech-2-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100209.4.2-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will try to start by answering some concrete questions and will then address the more general ones.
What happens in the Commission is more or less the same as what is happening in national governance and in global governance. We see now that, very often, Heads of State or Government need to address, in a coordinated and coherent way, matters that were previously dealt with separately by those responsible in the different governments.
So this is exactly what we intend to do. I want to underline this point with special pride because we are now building this new Commission on the experience of the previous one. The previous one was the first Commission of this enlarged Europe – the first time we had a Commission with 27 members from 27 different countries. The fact that that Commission worked in a truly collegiate spirit with a sense of purpose is indeed a demonstration that the enlarged European Union can work with 27 or more Members. I think this is also critically important for the future.
There were some concrete questions about cohesion policy and some Community policies like fisheries and agriculture – for example, the question by Mr Capoulas Santos. The cohesion policy has been enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon. By its nature, it is a European policy. We need to see how we can continue the process of reform so that we can continue to improve the policy’s value for money and ensure that cohesion policy and regional policy are translated into a real increase in the competitiveness of all the regions of Europe. We need to be sure that the policy can achieve that so that we can have a strong case in the next financing debate. Let me assure you of my full commitment – and, I think I can say, the full commitment of the new Commission – to the principles of social, economic and territorial cohesion that are also enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. Of course, we will do everything we can to promote the common policies of Europe.
There were some concrete questions about social impact assessment – Mr Cercas’s question. I want to make clear what I have said publicly before. We are committed to introducing this social impact assessment in our work through the Impact Assessment Board. We believe we have made a lot of progress on impact assessment. We are always ready to improve that work and we believe the social dimension should be properly addressed in our work.
Some Members of this Parliament put questions to me regarding energy security. I want to underline that we are going to include energy security in our proposal for the European Union 2020 strategy. One of the innovations of the European Union 2020 strategy is precisely to bring together some policies that were previously treated separately. I believe that promoting energy security and energy efficiency should be an important part of our agenda for competitiveness and for greener, sustainable and resource-efficient growth in Europe. This underlines how important we believe this agenda is.
Some of you asked me about SMEs and the value of the internal market – Mr Hökmark and others. It is very important to relaunch the internal market now. It is important to make clear that the internal market is not just about a market, even if markets are important.
Some people believe that we defend markets because we are market fundamentalists. Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe the internal market is, above all, the basis for the European project. Without an internal market, we will not have a strong European Union. If you allow the internal market to be fragmented, we will see the ugly face of economic nationalism again in Europe. We have to speak courageously and say that the internal market exists to defend the weakest – the consumers, to defend small and medium-sized companies against monopolies, and, of course, to defend the European project as a whole. That is why I asked Mr Monti to produce a report so that we can bring some new ideas and also create a larger consensus to relaunch and deepen the internal market as one of the great past and future achievements of our European project.
I would like now to mention one or two more general issues that some of you have raised. Mr Daul, Mr Schulz, Mr Lamassoure – who gave a speech in which he stressed the importance of boldness – Mr López Aguilar, Mr Mayor Oneja and many others have raised the issue of ambition. This is, in my view, an extremely important point, and we must have an honest debate on it.
Some of you, and particularly Mr Schulz, have questioned me once again on the issue of the market and of social policy. I would say to you once again: it is not the Commission that you have to convince of the need to have a social purpose. You will have to work with us to try to convince certain capitals, because the truth is very clear: some capitals believe that Europe is solely about the market and that, under the principle of solidarity, they are responsible for social policy. I disagree. I believe that, in order to also have an emotional attachment to Europe, we need a social dimension. We need a social dimension that actually combines what can be done at European level with what can be done at national level. No one wants to create a European social security system or a centralised health system in Europe. That is not what we are proposing.
Moreover, this should not be seen in terms of competition between the national level and the European level. However, if, in addition to our work on the internal market, on competition, on State aid policy and on other policies, such as external trade policy, there is no social dimension in Europe, we will have difficulty in ensuring the legitimacy of the European project.
Firstly, on the euro area, some Members of this Parliament raised issues relating to the euro area and some current problems we are facing in euro area Member States. First of all, let me recall that the euro is one of the major successes in Europe’s history. Since its creation with 11 participants, the euro area has grown to comprise 16 Member States. The euro area has been an area of stability and job creation. Of course, it was affected by the crisis. Non-euro area countries were also affected by the crisis. I do not need to remind you that, just a few days ago, I received the Prime Minister of Iceland, a country very close to us – and a non-euro area member – which was indeed facing this crisis. I want to repeat that this crisis was not created in the euro area; it came from outside the euro area.
I would therefore stress this point: we are not the ones who have to be convinced of the need for a social dimension. Work with us to strengthen Europe’s social dimension – the social market economy – which is, moreover, enshrined as an objective in the Treaty of Lisbon. I am very committed to this, and we must strive to achieve it together. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
As regards the matter of governance – a favourite issue of Mr Verhofstadt’s and also of mine – once again, help us, support us. I am in favour of enhanced governance of Europe, and Europe needs this enhanced governance. My speech – you will call it a speech, it is a speech, but it is, all the same, a speech that I am making on behalf of the new College and which reflects a political ambition, a political stance – is clear. We are living in unprecedented times. As I said, both within and outside Europe, we need more determination with regard to European matters. I am absolutely convinced, intellectually and politically, that, if Europe does not act in a concerted manner, we risk having only an insignificant role at international level in the future. I said this in my guidelines, before the Heads of State or Government, and I am going to repeat it at the informal European Council, the day after tomorrow, because I am convinced of it.
I believe that recent developments have only served to highlight this situation more acutely. The international financial crisis has shown just how interdependent our economies are. The problems being experienced by the euro area right now also show how interdependent our economies are. We must therefore step up our efforts in terms of European coordination and governance. Brussels need not necessarily be given national competences: this is a 20th century debate and one which I believe has had its day. It is wrong to make this an ‘it is for Brussels, it is for the Commission, it is against the Member States …’ kind of debate, because it is ridiculous.
It is clear that, while we want to have a role in the world today, our Member States alone do not have the influence required to negotiate on equal terms with the United States, Russia or China. We therefore need this dimension, not to strengthen Brussels, but to strengthen Europe and, above all, to focus on the real interests of each of our fellow citizens. It is here that we must work together, and here too, I say to you: support us. We need your support, not in a course that will inevitably lead to war between the institutions – now more than ever we need the institutional partnership – but to defend Europe’s interests in the world.
Lastly, in terms of external relations, here too let us be absolutely clear. Where in the world does Europe count? Europe counts in the world where it has, in fact, a coordinated position. It is respected in trade terms, I can assure you of that. Our competition laws are respected by all the major international conglomerates. We have a common policy. We have institutions. We have the basis on which to act. Bear in mind, though, that we are living at a time, particularly in international security terms, when Europe does not have the geopolitical and defence instruments that others have. I can see very clearly, when I speak with some of our international partners, that they think above all in terms of security. They think in terms of strategic balance. And here, it must be said clearly, Europe cannot be naive.
The problem in Copenhagen was not a lack of ambition from Europe, as some are saying. On the contrary, we were by far the most ambitious. For me, what Copenhagen showed was that we had to express a European interest in the various areas and defend it consistently and strategically, with all our partners. Therefore, we must not simply conduct a generous policy, important though it is; we must also have the strength to defend our generosity and the conviction to defend our interests. That is what I intend to do, and I also hope to have your support in this regard.
Finally, some Members – Mr Lehne and Mr Swoboda, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, Mrs Wallis and Mr Rangel, among others – spoke at length about the institutional question, and, in particular, about the Framework Agreement. I wish to say to you that what I did in the negotiations with you was precisely to convey the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Some people have not yet realised that the European Parliament has powers today that it did not have prior to the Treaty of Lisbon. I believe in the European dimension of the parliamentarian, and when I use the word ‘dimension’ – my English is not as good as yours, Mrs Wallis – it is not to say something vague. For me, ‘dimension’ means depth, it means scope. It is something very ambitious, in any case.
I wish to work with Parliament in this spirit. Not against another institution, because I believe – and I must say it here – that we need a very strong Council and European Council. I welcome the innovations in the Treaty of Lisbon, not least the existence of a permanent Presidency of the European Council, because this provides continuity and consistency in the long term.
But the truth is that the euro did protect the countries which share the single currency. I believe that the European situation would be much more difficult today if we did not have the euro. We have yet to reap the full benefits of the euro. To do so, we need to reinforce economic coordination in the euro area. It is true that we do not have just a monetary union. We should have a real economic union. The treaty gives new opportunities, which I intend to make use of. Olli Rehn, the new Commissioner for these matters – if we get your support – will develop this line.
I very much welcome the creation of the role of High Representative, who is, at the same time, Vice-President of the European Commission. This is not about making things more difficult, quite the opposite! Instead of having two centres for external relations, one on the Council side, and one on the Commission side, we now have one key figure – in this case, Baroness Ashton – who is going to defend the European interest with intergovernmental legitimacy, which remains very important in external matters, but also with European legitimacy.
Therefore, I say this with a great deal of conviction. I believe that it would be a mistake to start a debate or an institutional conflict now. We need the various institutions. Some people felt compelled to ask the eternal question about Mr Kissinger and the telephone number. I have already said it once: Mr Kissinger was the Secretary of State. I believe that, from now on, the US Secretary of State’s opposite number will be Baroness Ashton. She has the responsibility and the ability to play that role.
However, at Heads of State or Government level, apart from the relationships with our Member States, we have, in the Treaty of Lisbon, the President of the Council, who represents Europe in external policy and common security matters, and the Commission which, pursuant to Article 17, represents Europe in every other aspect of external relations. That is our system.
Some people would like a completely unified system. As some have said, the United States, at times, does not have a completely unified system either. At times, we negotiate with the US Administration and we subsequently discover that Congress does not follow exactly the same line as the US Administration.
It is also important to understand here that we consist of 27 Member States. We have a system that is an improvement on the internal system. Instead of having a Presidency that changes every six months, we have a permanent Presidency of the Council. We now have the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission. This is a step forward, true, but dynamism is more important than mechanism, and it is in this way that we must add a new dimension to our action.
I shall conclude by making an appeal to this House. With power comes responsibility. I am going to be very frank with you here, ladies and gentlemen: the European Parliament has gained a large number of powers with this revision. I hope that these powers will be used not only for feel-good policies, but also as part of the responsibility of governing Europe with the other institutions. This is a big test of the responsibility of all the institutions – of the European Parliament, of the Commission and of the European Council.
Some of you asked me – sincerely, I believe – to show more boldness. I can tell you that I am ready to make efforts along those lines. However, the Commission alone will be unable to see them through. Let us be clear on this point. It would be an illusion, and the Commission cannot establish its influence, its power, its direction against the will of our Member States, which are democratic States.
We must establish these things together, with a parliamentary assembly – in this case, a European Parliament – which genuinely assumes its responsibility, which is not simply, as some people want, a place in which to protest. Moreover, I have noticed that some people speak louder because they are weaker! What we need, therefore, is for all the European political groups that are in power to work together.
Some political groups said that they would vote against us. When it comes to the extremes, I can tell you that I would be worried if they did vote for us. I do not need that kind of support. The Commission does not want their support. However, the Commission wants and requests the support of all the European forces. That, I do ask of you. I ask for it modestly, but also with the firm belief that we need your support and that you can help us to fill the gap that exists today.
What is the real problem? Let us be clear on this subject too. When we talk about it with our fellow citizens, there is, today, in Europe – and this will be my final point, Mr President – a fundamental gap between our stated ambitions and the results that we manage to obtain.
Looking ahead at how to reinforce the euro area is very important, but of course, it does not prevent us from looking at the present. The period the euro area is going through is a difficult one. There is no point in denying it. Other countries outside the euro area are also facing very difficult times. Let us also recognise that. However, I must say that the situation in the financial markets is sometimes reported in a way that amplifies the problems, and does not always give an objective assessment of the situation. Such analyses usually come from non-euro area countries.
Some now wish to use this gap as a means of lowering our ambitions. Others – and we are in this camp – want to improve our results so that they match our ambitions. I am counting on this House to fulfil our ambition, an ambition for a stronger Europe, in an increasingly demanding world.
I ask you to give your support to the new Commission so that, with our ambition, we can turn the European dream into a reality.
But the euro area has the capacity to deal with the difficulties currently affecting it. We have our system of fiscal rules, the Stability and Growth Pact, which must be properly implemented. In the case of Greece, we have the capacity to assess and monitor its fiscal adjustment programme. We have the possibility of recommending bold structural reforms in Greece which will also be closely monitored by the Commission.
On 3 February, the Commission adopted a package on Greece which will go to the Council early next week. Naturally, the solution requires, above all, action from the Greek side. Support for the determination of the Greek authorities will increase confidence in the successful achievement of the ambitious programme they have adopted.
Member States, particularly those in the euro area, should always have in mind that the economic policies of each of them have an impact on the economies of others. I welcome clear indications that all Member States are aware of the challenge and will act accordingly.
There was a concrete question asked about consumer policy, I think by Mrs Gebhardt. There is a person with clear responsibility for consumer policy in the Commission, namely Commissioner Dalli. He will be in charge of this policy, propose initiatives in this area and discuss them with you in the IMCO Committee and in plenary. Specific civil-law dimensions will be under the responsibility of the Commissioner for Justice, Vice-President Reding. This is normal in most executives around Europe, where those specific issues are dealt with by the Minister of Justice.
Of course, all decisions on new initiatives will have to be approved by the College. I am extremely committed to collegiality. In fact, many of you have urged the Commission to keep a strong accent on collegiality. Under the treaties, the President of the Commission is the guarantor of collegiality. In today’s policies, this is a normal tendency. More and more issues are transversal or horizontal by nature. They need a common purpose and they require the integration of different sectoral policies."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples