Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-20-Speech-2-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100420.4.2-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, on behalf of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), we welcome the fact that the Commission has ambitiously set to work and presented its 2010 work programme. We take this in the spirit in which it was meant, that the Commission is present, and as a sign of respect for Parliament, of taking Parliament seriously, and we are glad that they are all present. At the same time, we regret that much time has already been wasted this year, since the delay in the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon has already prevented the harmonisation of the legislative programme and the budget from being made this year. We have every confidence that this process can be restored in 2011 after overcoming minor difficulties.
The Treaty of Lisbon came into force, and henceforth we can no longer make any excuses, as Members of the European Parliament, nor does the Commission or the Council, for not taking decisive action and not starting the work, that is, implementing that which the Treaty of Lisbon prescribes and fulfilling what citizens want, placing them at the centre of our policy plans.
The European People’s Party prepared two lists with regard to the Commission’s plans. We sent the details to you even before acceptance. The two lists, which I would like now to cite briefly, consist simply of a list of what the Commission should not do, and a list that itemises what we would like them to do.
First, we would like to ask that the Commission not do what has been the practice till now, because that would render this debate meaningless, namely, that by October, only 40% of your legislative proposals for the year had been tabled. If this continues to be the case in the future, then these sorts of debates are pointless. Parliament cannot exercise the right by which it wishes to make an impact on what proposals the Commission should put forward. It is for this reason that we consider it important that these legislative proposals or work programmes are not considered on a par with the old Communist five-year plans, in which nothing, from start to finish, was true. And what they eventually achieved had nothing whatsoever to do with the final objectives.
The other things we ask of the Commission is not to tolerate lies and deception. At the moment, several European countries are in crisis because they concealed the correct data, and lied about the size of the budget deficit. They concealed this information from the others, and yet we are all in the same boat, and such things affect many people. This was the case in Hungary, this was the case in Greece. In such cases, we expect the Commission not to shrink back, but to name and shame such countries decisively, or else there will be much more trouble later.
The renowned nineteenth century thinker of the Hungarian age of reform, Count Széchenyi, said that anyone who covers up trouble increases it. So we should not cover it up, but come forward with it, and, on that basis, take the necessary decisive action. The Commission ought to exercise its competence in this regard. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the Commission is to blame for these crises. The governments of these countries are responsible for these crises; however, in the interest of the common good, we should have raised our voices louder and more decisively in order to see results.
Now let us move on to what the Commission should do. First of all, it should at last take action and decisions, and should develop an ambitious job creation programme. It should place citizens at the centre of our work. Jobs, jobs, jobs must be our guiding principle. Let me start here by saying that naturally, when we address citizens, we need to use a language that they understand. When we say 2020, then I – an MEP from a former Communist country – associate this once again with the five-year plan, or the sort of number they used to assign to prisoners. Why do we not call the 2020 programme the European Union’s job creation programme, why do we not call the Stockholm Programme – a name that, by the way, no one besides us understands – the European citizen security programme? What I mean to say is that the words we use are also an important part of the start of this entire process.
We consider it important that small and medium-sized enterprises take an active part in the process of job creation. They would not like it if the 2020 job creation programme was shoved down Parliament’s throat. We need a thorough debate here, and not just in this Parliament but in the national parliaments, and the national decision-making authorities must be involved as well. Let us learn from the failure of the Lisbon Programme – yet another name that no one understands! Let us work for the security of our citizens and let us take the steps necessary in this regard. Mr President, just one observation: man does not live by bread alone – strengthening our common values is also important. We expect the Commission to continue those value-based programmes which deal with Communism, with the coexistence of national minorities, and with Europe’s common past. The European People’s Party will support you, but we will criticise you very severely if you deviate from the original programme."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples