Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-15-Speech-2-424-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110215.25.2-424-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"First of all, I would like to thank you for your speeches, and I would particularly like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Brok and Mr Gualtieri, for their comments concerning the importance of the Community method, as well as their attentiveness to what might become an intergovernmental drift. I can only thank them for this attentiveness.
In this specific case, let us be absolutely clear: the Commission has given its support to this revision because we think that it aims to respond to a challenge regarding a competence which was not provided for by the Treaty. The Treaty did not establish a permanent stability mechanism. The Member States thus unanimously decided to create a mechanism and to do so on an intergovernmental basis. This was a unanimous decision by the Member States.
I make no secret of the fact – and I have said very clearly – that I will be with all those who want to move more quickly on this. An intergovernmental step might represent progress, but we would rather move more quickly in an intergovernmental stride. As we know, however, some of the great steps forward for Europe in the history of European integration have begun with intergovernmental initiatives, such as Schengen or the area of freedom and justice, for example. The question regarding political responsibility was thus the following: do we, or do we not, have to support something which, while not being absolutely in line with our preferences – that is, the Community method – nevertheless involves the strengthening of our collective ability to respond to challenges which were not explicitly provided for in the Treaty? Our answer to this is ‘yes’; I think that we have to be in favour of this. That is why the Commission’s opinion is positive regarding this reform of the Treaty.
However, I would like to say to you very openly that the Commission prefers the Community approach. Incidentally, this is the debate that we had during the preparation of this decision. Some people wanted – and even proposed – a modification of Article 122, which would abolish a competence that has been in existence since the Treaties of Rome. I personally opposed this. I therefore think we can say that we can now develop this new competence together, even if, strictly speaking, it does not come under the Community method. At the same time, however, we say very clearly in our opinion, and I quote: ‘The Commission will take every initiative, whether legislative or of any other kind, to ensure consistency between the future mechanism and the Union’s economic governance in the euro area in particular, while respecting the competences conferred on the Union and its institutions by the Treaty ’. This is an absolutely clear position, and I would like to share this aim with you.
During the debate, some people talked, for example, about opposition or differences between one Member State and the others, between the United Kingdom and the euro area. Normally, I do not like to make this distinction, but there are some differences, the main one, incidentally, being the fact that the debt of the euro area is much less than that of the United Kingdom. The debt of the United Kingdom is much higher than that of the euro area as a whole. That is why the problem that exists in the euro area – as some of you have already stressed, by the way – is genuinely a problem of relative competitiveness. That is why we are now looking to find a solution for competitiveness and for convergence – and I stress convergence – in the Union.
Even if some people do not agree, let us move towards greater convergence in the euro area and in the Union for those who want to move forward, because now it is not just the federalists or the integrationists who want more governance in the European Union. The markets are also asking for such governance, and we need to listen to that. Today, the markets are asking Europe not only to be determined to defend the euro area, but also to provide a clearer system of governance. It is true, furthermore, that the Community approach normally gives more of a guarantee than an approach which is too often left up to the goodwill of the leaders.
We are now working in this direction on other projects, notably, this project on competitiveness and convergence, but that will be another debate for another day. In any case, I believe that, on this matter, the Commission has adopted the right position: expressing a clear opinion in favour of this limited revision of the Treaty, while asking everyone to be more attentive to the need to avoid creating mechanisms which, as Mr Brok, for example, has said, could create divisions, because it is the Community institutions that can guarantee the Union as a whole, because the Commission takes actions for the euro area as well as for those Member States that are not in the euro area.
Let us therefore be attentive to this aspect. Let us not, motivated by the need to respond to urgent challenges, now create issues which could bring up more significant problems for us in the future. Let us guarantee a firmer governance while guaranteeing the union as a whole in the spirit which must, of course, be the spirit of the Union: the spirit of solidarity and responsibility."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples