Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-06-Speech-3-072-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110706.2.3-072-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, firstly I must, of course, begin by thanking you for your words, both for those words which were unequivocal in their support for the vision of our affairs which I presented, but also for all the other contributions; they expressed a little less enthusiasm, but they confirmed the purpose of this debate; they confirmed the reason for having the European Parliament and they confirmed the belief of even the most sceptical in this Chamber that we built this building precisely so that in it we could exchange our views, and that includes our views on the future of Europe. Thank you very much, too, for those words which – as someone here rightly noted – were compliments. They were compliments which were, I think, meant more for my country than for me personally.
In closing, I know I have not answered all the questions and have not responded to everything that was said. I have not lectured anyone here, Mr President, and I certainly am not going to do so. That is not my role, and I would not risk doing anything so reckless. However, there were some questions or statements to which, in my opinion, we should not respond emotionally, because statements which go as far as to be humiliating to every true European, or which strike at the fundamental principles of the equality of every human being, irrespective of race, nationality or place of birth, I understand as discrediting those who make them, and not the nations referred to in them.
Even if we do sometimes hear the sceptical voices of Poles here, in my country today, the level of clear support for Europe is impressive. We have often boasted about this, but then it is something which is worth mentioning repeatedly. After several years of membership, which have been good but not at all easy years, over 80% of Poles are very satisfied with the fact that we are in the European Union. That energy and belief in the reason for our work is something I wanted to convey here. I am not the source of this belief. I am, today, only someone who is reporting the fact that there is a nation in Europe which almost in its entirety believes in the Europe we have in common.
Perhaps I did not speak very precisely about a certain initiative of which you reminded me here; an initiative which is also going to provide practical confirmation of my conviction that working with Parliament is not just a matter of ingratiation. We are not talking about working together because this is what we are supposed to say in Parliament. It really is our conviction that since we do want more integration, but do not want bureaucratisation or poor practice, we must involve the European Parliament and national parliaments in the most important debates. This is why we have proposed holding a conference in the autumn on the future of European finance, an open debate in which Parliament and representatives of national parliaments will play a leading role. Naturally, the Commission and the Council will also take part in the debate.
We are convinced that to speak with courage and without hypocrisy about the future of Europe, we must also speak about the future of European money. We hope the conference will confirm this. It is also only a sign of things to come, because we would like this open debate to become something permanent in the future. We would also like to make intensive efforts for calm and constructive debate about the budget. I have not concealed this intention; we want to protect the European budget from measures which could reduce Europe’s ability to work as a whole.
We talked a lot about Schengen in the context of two matters which were mentioned: the Danish decisions and the dreams or expectations of Romania and Bulgaria in relation to joining the Schengen area as soon as possible. As for the actions of Denmark, but also as for some statements which have been made recently by the European Council, I am a vigorous opponent of any kind of restriction on internal movement under the pretext of problems over migration, and am more in favour of strengthening external borders. Recent Danish actions may cause us concern, because they can be seen as a further signal that full freedom of movement around the European Union may be threatened in the future. As we also heard here, freedom of movement in the European Union is being treated as a curse and not a blessing. Therefore, in my opinion, we should work with the Commission to find measures which will guarantee the free movement of people and, at the same time, protect Europe from the adverse effects of illegal migration or other similar circumstances. As for Romania and Bulgaria: every Member State of the European Union which meets the technical and organisational requirements for being in the Schengen area – as do Romania and Bulgaria, and this has been confirmed, too, by the Commission – should be in Schengen. We establish requirements, conditions and criteria so that countries which meet them can benefit from this basic principle.
It was asked here if the Presidency is going to work for policy which benefits the entire Union, so that joint decisions are not made under the dictates of the largest Member States. However, there were also voices which questioned the need to strengthen the European institutions. We have to make up our mind about this. No one, I suppose, wants a situation in which one, two or three Member States impose their selfish point of view on anyone because of their strength. We built the European institutions – and even after Lisbon there is still a rotating Presidency – so that the different potentials of Member States can be evened out by Union policy, but for this we need strong institutions. It will be our ambition to direct the work of the European Union by acting in conjunction with others, so that everyone will feel they are equally empowered participants. However, this will only be possible when we stop questioning such institutions as the European Commission and instead believe in the reason for strengthening them. It is then that we will have the tools for putting Union policy into effect. If we do really want to have policy which works for the whole Union, we must have strong Union institutions – the Commission, Parliament and others – otherwise we are deceiving ourselves.
I also want to reassure everyone about what was said during the debate by several Polish Members of the House. The date of parliamentary elections in Poland is, in fact, set by the constitution. The government has nothing to do with choosing the date of elections. Elections in Poland are held on a date which is determined by the constitution. It is not very good that the elections will be held during the Presidency, but we will take care that these two situations do not conflict with each other. No motion was tabled in the Polish Parliament for an early dissolution. I think it is better to have democratic government which keeps to constitutional dates than an executive which makes use of any pretext to shorten or extend a term of office. That is what happened, for example, in Poland in the case of my predecessors, who shortened their term of office. It was in fact they who decided that our Presidency would coincide with the elections, and not I.
It is our ambition to support negotiations with Ukraine on association and increased trade. I was in Kiev several months ago, and I think that I made known my intention very clearly – as Prime Minister of a government which was soon to hold the Presidency – to make use of what is currently the best possible climate for Ukraine and the European Union in terms of the association agreement. This requires great effort from Ukraine, because by entering into the association agreement, it is Ukraine which will have to respect our common principles. I think that everything is going extremely well. I do agree that this is precisely the moment at which, while respecting all the rules and not just making things easier, we should dot the next i for Ukraine – and also for other countries. I am certain that during these six months, the progress made in a number of negotiations will be satisfactory. I will do everything to ensure that this will be the case.
I know that a priority – and a permanent one – for a significant part of this House are ecological matters, and that this includes climate in particular. However, when I have met with you in different places, I have never been dishonest with any of you. My, or rather, the Polish point of view is perhaps not sufficiently enthusiastic to achieve full approval from the pro-climate or pro-ecological avant-garde. I want to assure everyone that I do understand very well the difference between forcing national interest during various negotiations carried out under the banner of the European Union and holding the Presidency, and with the best will and with the help of all the available tools and my own personal skills, I will work on behalf of Europe, and that includes preparation for Durban. I am certain we will find a solution which will not harm Europe in her ambitions for growth and development and which will also respect our current mutual obligations and arrangements."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples