Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-07-Speech-2-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100907.4.2-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, firstly, I should like to welcome the Belgian Presidency of the Council and to commend it on its speech.
We must hold this debate, and we must do so in a serious fashion, because I have seen the majority of MEPs come up with an ambitious idea for the forthcoming budget. We must win this debate in the eyes of the public in our Member States. It will clearly be a very complex debate, in an extremely difficult economic situation. If the Member States cannot increase their contribution, resources will have to be found so that the European Union can deliver results.
What we cannot do is ask Europe to deliver results without giving it the resources to do so. It would be impossible to do that, and so we must have an extremely serious debate on this issue of solidarity and subsidiarity.
Some of the policies that you have mentioned here are policies that must be developed at national level. The retirement issue, the social security issue – these are primarily national issues. There are different models. What the Commission says – and we have actually stated this in various documents – is that we obviously have to carry out reforms in this sector. If we want to guarantee the sustainability of our pensions – not just of our pensions but of our children’s, too – in the light of Europe’s demographic changes and ageing population, then there obviously have to be reforms. It is now up to each government to determine the pace of, consensus on, and scope for root and branch reform.
Yet, although we want to win the global competitiveness battle, we cannot do so if working hours are constantly being reduced, if the number of people in active employment is being reduced. We cannot do it, and we must have the courage to say that, if Europe wants to win the competitiveness battle, particularly when faced with certain emerging countries, we must work more and we must work longer. If anyone says otherwise, they are not telling the truth. More and better, that is the truth.
Similarly, it must be said very clearly that, without budgetary consolidation, we will not have confidence. If there is no confidence, there is no growth. If there is no growth, there is no employment. Therefore, budgetary consolidation is a crucial element.
At the same time, we need investment in areas that focus, of course, on the future, and we need it at European level and at national level alike. This presents a huge challenge – to us, in the European institutions, but also to those responsible for taking decisions at national level. How can we guarantee, in such a difficult period, that the investments we make are focused on the future? We in Europe are currently defining the areas in question. I have mentioned the areas in which we are going to make proposals for a more ambitious Europe.
In the case of SMEs, we have, of course, mentioned some specific ideas. I would also urge you to consider the document accompanying my speech, in particular, with regard to the Single Market Act, the legislation that we are going to propose with regard to electronic signatures, the numerous simplification measures, and the removal of certain obstacles which currently make the lives of our businesses, particularly our small and medium-sized enterprises, very difficult. The truth is that, for the vast majority of small and medium-sized enterprises, there is no integrated market as yet. They mainly operate in their national markets, but there are no real cross-border opportunities they can exploit as yet.
To conclude, I must tell you that we believe, like those of you who raised the point, that there is a confidence issue. A confidence issue not just at European level, but among political institutions in general. This means that all political decision makers are faced with a major challenge and a major responsibility. I believe that it is precisely by demonstrating strength of conviction that it is possible to have both serious responses and strong responses; not to take the weak middle ground, not to reach false consensus, but to have the courage to uphold, for Europe, this policy of balance, this policy of respect for the differences that exist in Europe.
There are differences in Europe. There are differences between our Member States; their national interests are sometimes at odds with each other. That is the truth, and it is only right that governments should defend their national interests. The question is: how can we show that they can achieve more at national level if Europe, too, is stronger? There are also, at times, ideological differences. They are justifiable. Looking beyond these ideological differences, however, can we or can we not have a strong consensus in favour of Europe?
I believe that we can. The Commission reaches consensus every day; my colleagues, from 27 countries, have different cultural and national backgrounds, and different ideologies. We work hard every day in the interests of Europe. I believe that, with you, the representatives directly elected by our fellow citizens, we can do more for a Europe that represents this spirit, a Europe of solidarity, a Europe of conviction, a Europe that is, at the same time, the Europe of the single market and the Europe of cohesion.
I believe that Parliament’s aim in holding this debate on the state of the Union was also to launch our programming exercise. That is why we must also focus on legislative work. As you know, in Europe, the Commission has the right of initiative but, afterwards, of course, we need Parliament and the Council to intervene so that we can conclude the legislative process.
I should also like to highlight an aspect mentioned by the Belgian Presidency, which is the importance of obtaining concrete results. We have presented, both in my speech and in the document that I forwarded to you via President Buzek, a very ambitious draft programme that includes, for example, the Community patent, public services – which some of you have spoken about – and many other measures that are the real test not only of the Community method, but of our real ambition for Europe.
On the subject of ambition, I should like to mention a positive development. I have just learnt that the Ecofin Council has approved our proposal for a European Semester. That is one good example. As you will no doubt recall, when the Commission presented the idea, a few months ago, of having a European Semester, or a period at the start of the year when we work together to prepare our budgets, to see how we can actually coordinate economic policies, straight away, there was a great deal of reaction by certain well-known individuals, who were saying that this undermined national sovereignty and that it even undermined the national parliaments. This was completely untrue.
The truth is that, ultimately, thanks to the work that was also done by the task force chaired by Mr Van Rompuy, thanks to the proposals strongly supported by the Commission and the Council, and with the ongoing support of this House, we have succeeded. We are in the process of establishing this European economic governance. I have said it once and I shall say it again: it is not enough to have a money economy; we need to have a true European economic policy.
This is the direction we are going in. I announced it in my speech, and the Commission will fight for these proposals.
One of the Members of this House said: ‘You have presented some interesting proposals, but how can you be sure they will succeed?’ That is a good question. We must work together. We will make progress with this ambition. Ultimately, we need to have the clear support of this Parliament and also the support, sometimes the unanimous support, of our Member States. The Commission is shouldering its responsibilities, and I now call on the other institutions to follow suit.
On the Roma issue, there will be a special debate on this this afternoon. The Vice-President and Commissioner for Justice and Fundamental Rights, Mrs Reding, and the Commissioner for Social Affairs, Mr Andor, will be present. I think that will be the best opportunity to enlarge on the very important issues you have raised.
On the question of subsidiarity, I am keen to stress that we are in favour of subsidiarity and solidarity in Europe. I did not say that a euro is always better spent at European level than at national level. I did not say that. What I did say – and what I would say again – is that there are indeed many areas in which there are synergy effects and scale effects. Spending at European level is the only way of ensuring that Europe can act and can derive the maximum benefit for our fellow citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples