Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-20-Speech-2-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100420.4.2-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in general – we are not talking about those who have said clearly and honestly that they are against the Union and against membership of the European Union – I feel able to say that there is, nonetheless, in this House, broad agreement on the programme that we have just presented.
The important thing now, I would stress, is to understand the principle of subsidiarity properly. I am in favour of subsidiarity. In this respect, I am also keen to voice my agreement, Mr Kirkhope, with this idea of subsidiarity, but it is important to have a proper understanding of what it means. Subsidiarity means deciding which level of decision making is best.
On the subject of this air traffic crisis, the events taking place are, all the same, odd. I have seen today in the press – and not only in the Eurosceptic or Europhobe press, not only in the tabloids, but also in the quality press – that the European Union now admits that it was mistaken in deciding to suspend flights. That is unbelievable!
If there is one area that comes under national jurisdiction, it is European air traffic control. The decision was taken by each European national regulator. Yet the very people who are against European-level powers are now protesting against Europe. Soon, the talk will be that it was the European Commission and Brussels that created the volcano in Iceland. It is all really rather extraordinary.
Let us be clear. There are different levels of responsibility: national levels and European levels. In each case, we have to see which is the most appropriate level. I can tell you that the Commission is ready to assume its responsibilities, but I believe that we must build an alliance with the European Parliament in order to state clearly what is, and what is not, our responsibility.
Without this alliance, we will always have this instinctive need – and, in times of crisis, we know that it is easier to resort to nationalist, populist rhetoric – to place under the responsibility of Brussels, as is sometimes said, or perhaps of Strasbourg too, what is frankly a national responsibility.
Let us show some common sense! Let us concentrate on what we can do at European level, in areas where we can add value to our action, while respecting, of course, our Member States, which are democratic Member States. The 2020 agenda, I believe, focuses Europe on what is most important.
What we need now is growth, but not just any old growth; we need fairer, more open, more sustainable and more intelligent growth that is focused on the future.
We need to create new sources of growth in order to successfully tackle our biggest problem, which we shall be discussing this afternoon, namely, unemployment and, more specifically, youth unemployment. It is in this area, in fact, that we need to build this alliance between the European institutions, by also working honestly and loyally with our Member States to produce concrete results for our fellow citizens.
I believe that in this regard, we have a good foundation for our work in the coming years and, after this debate, I feel encouraged – and I believe that my colleagues do too – by your words of support and, in certain cases, by your demands. We shall try to prove equal to the task with which you are entrusting us.
If there is one common factor that I have detected in the speeches of the most representative political groups, it is the idea of ambition. We need greater ambition in Europe. In this regard, I wish to take up a few ideas that have been voiced, ideas with which, I might add, I am in particular agreement.
Our friend, Mr Szájer, spoke of the need to avoid, in fact, the model of the five-year plan of the communist regimes. That is precisely why we want to maintain this flexibility, which is important if we are to adapt to a changing environment.
At the same time, I would like to confirm once again, in response to Mr Szájer, but also to Mr Swoboda, that they are right when they call for greater action from the EU in economic and financial terms, and when they point out how the Member States have resisted, for example, the Commission playing a greater role in the supervision of national public accounts.
The first Commission of which I had the honour of being President presented a specific regulation aimed at giving greater audit powers to Eurostat, and that was rejected by certain Member States, which did not want the Commission to be able to play that role.
I therefore hope that the lesson to be learnt from this crisis is that we are increasingly interdependent, that economic policy in Europe is not just a national matter. It is a national matter, of course, but it is also a matter of common European interests, since we need a greater degree of coordination. In this respect, I believe that Mr Szájer, Mr Swoboda, Mrs De Sarnez and all the others are agreed on the need for such increasingly coordinated economic policy.
This is how we make progress, and in this respect, I wish to highlight in particular the ambition expressed by Mr Swoboda – and I thank him – for an enhanced partnership between the Commission and the European Parliament when we talk about the financial perspective, about the need to resist certain rather intergovernmental interpretations that one hears nowadays. Such interpretations are surprising, because the Treaty of Lisbon is, in fact, the exact opposite of intergovernmentalism: it strengthens the European dimension.
I hope that we will be able to learn lessons from this crisis by moving in the direction of more, not less, Europe. One example – to which Mrs De Sarnez referred – is the issue of financial regulation. It is, all the same, odd, not to say ironic, that after so many requests from certain Member States for measures in the field of financial regulation, the Member States unanimously agreed to reduce the ambition of the proposals that the Commission presented following the de Larosière report.
This shows, therefore, that there is, at times, a gap between what is said and what is decided. I hope that we, the European Parliament and the Commission, will together be able to fill that gap in order to try to achieve a little more consistency at European level, because we do, in fact, need that ambition."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples