Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-02-Speech-3-044-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110202.14.3-044-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament held a hearing yesterday, during the course of which we prepared for the energy summit at the weekend. My colleague, Mrs Ulvskog, will relate what we discussed there in more detail later. I will therefore limit myself to two essential elements.
In this regard, it is also necessary for Mr Mubarak to step down. That would be a positive and encouraging signal. While we are on the subject of our values, our democracy and our freedom of expression, I am pleased that Mrs Győri is here. I would like to say one thing to you, Mrs Győri: I have now read the Hungarian Government’s response to the letter from the Commission. I have to say that the Commission’s letter was excellent. It was a polite question asking whether the Hungarian Government would be so kind as to tell us whether it could possibly agree that the law that it has drawn up might not perhaps be totally in order – and our apologies for asking! The response was: how could you even ask us such a thing; everything is just fine here. This should not happen in Europe. I will say once again: this law is not compatible with fundamental European rules.
It is not compatible with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. That has been stated very elegantly by Mrs Kroes herself. If this law is not amended, I will feel deceived by the President-in-Office of the Council. The President and the Prime Minister of Hungary said in this House: ‘If the Commission makes comments, we will amend the law.’ The Commission has made comments and I therefore expect Hungary to amend this law. How do we otherwise intend to speak about democracy in the Mediterranean with any credibility if we do not implement it ourselves in Europe?
If we assess the level of implementation at national level of the 20-20-20 goals that we have adopted, and which were celebrated by some governments of the European Union, no more than 9% of what we have set ourselves is achievable as things currently stand. Thus, as far as energy policy is concerned, this weekend’s summit is a crisis summit, and if we do not put a massive amount of commitment into this, these goals will not be achieved.
My second comment is that we are seeing a trend on the energy price market that is leading to energy poverty in Europe. Energy and energy supply are starting to be seen as a privilege by a large proportion of households. The additional costs involved in renting are increasing to such an extent that, in future, those on low incomes will have to wear thick jumpers because they cannot heat their homes. Disconnecting people from the energy supply is a question of social injustice. That is also something that an energy summit such as this needs to address.
However, at this summit we will, of course, find that other things will be discussed, and I would like to pick up on what the President of the Commission said. The government of the Federal Republic of Germany – led by the Federal Chancellor – has done a complete about-turn. Everything that was previously wrong with economic governance, which was a socialist idea, is now suddenly right. Well, it is better late than never. The President of the Commission is right about one thing, however. This about-turn must not lead to a change of direction that upsets the balance of the European institutions.
One thing is absolutely clear: all European policy that currently exists within the framework of the current treaties must be dealt with within the existing institutions. At the heart of this is the Commission, and no other institution, and, I might add, for the following key reason: The Commission is the institution that is tied to Parliament in this regard, and parliamentary authorisation for action taken in matters of sovereignty – and monetary issues are key matters of sovereignty – is essential. Therefore, we say ‘yes’ to economic governance, but with its practical implementation based in the Commission and subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament. That is a basic condition for maintaining the balance of the European institutions.
We are in a situation where Europe is faced with internal challenges and also challenges in terms of international policy. I am – and I will say this quite openly here – disturbed by the statements made by some European politicians. I am disturbed by the absence of Europe in a historic process. You make your statement Mr Barroso – excellent. Mr van Rompuy makes his statement – that is also excellent. Baroness Ashton makes a statement – great. Then Mrs Merkel, Mr Sarkozy and Mr Cameron make a statement in a joint communication – and I do not know what is behind this new alliance – that is also great. However, there is no one there – there is no one on the ground who, in direct dialogue with the people who are fighting for their democracy, is talking about how we Europeans can help and support this process.
You can write anything you like on paper, but paper will not help us. We must not waste the opportunity that we have here. I will admit that, just in the last week, Mr Cohn-Bendit has made me aware of a great opportunity that has arisen. I have to admit that I did not recognise it at first glance, but the people who are demonstrating on the streets, the people who are leading this revolution, have anything but a religious state on their minds. They want secularism. They want civil democracy. These are our partners. We need to work together with these people to make this a great opportunity for Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples