Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.2.2-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is only right that we should hold a general debate on the state of the Union once a year. I would like today's debate to be another step forward along the road we are to travel in 2001. It is a road which will clearly be marked by a number of events and priorities, which I shall mention shortly, but, most importantly, it will be taking us already – and I am tempted to say at last – in the direction of the Europe of tomorrow.
Finally, to promote new forms of European governance, we set to work on a White Paper which is scheduled to be published before the end of the summer.
Essentially, ladies and gentlemen, my Commission delivered on its commitments during 2000, seeking clear, simple solutions. Today, before this House, I want to say how proud I am of my staff, for whom 2000 was a year of far-reaching internal reforms. My fellow Commissioners and I are aware that we have made considerable demands of our colleagues, not only in terms of workload, but especially because they have had to adapt to changes in working methods and to taking greater individual responsibility for their action.
Internal reform, while clearly not a political objective in itself, is nevertheless one of the Commission's ongoing tasks for 2001. Indeed, every organisation of every kind has to adapt continuously to a changing world. That is what we are trying to do right now. However, no administration can be expected to cope with so much stress for very long, however genuinely necessary the changes are. I am therefore determined to bring the internal reforms to a swift conclusion, in a climate of consultation and transparency, while fully complying with all our undertakings.
The Commission's political decisions are set out in the work programme for 2001 which was adopted at the end of January and immediately forwarded to Parliament. The key elements of this programme are structured around a number of major events. These are not a random collection of disparate items. They are linked by the constant guiding principle that our action must meet the practical needs of Europe's citizens and protect their interests. The debate on the future of the Union, which I shall be saying more about shortly, is also based on that principle. But first, let me describe the Commission's major initiatives for this year in greater detail.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, all our work since the Lisbon Summit and in preparing for Stockholm has had one constant aim: to create and preserve the conditions in which we can leave to our children a dynamic, just and prosperous Europe whose citizens have the latest skills, good jobs and an active role within our Community.
On the basis of the Commission's input, the Lisbon Summit last year produced a strategy for achieving this goal. Next month, at Stockholm, on the basis of the Commission's reports, the European Council will review progress to date – the areas where we have forged ahead, but also the areas where we are lagging behind.
One of the key goals of our strategy is to restore the right conditions for full employment. We are already seeing some encouraging progress: last year, 2.5 million jobs were created, more than two thirds of which taken up by women. This is a truly high figure, although it will clearly have to be repeated over a number of years to resolve the issue of unemployment.
However, in some sectors, as our Stockholm report makes clear, progress has been far too slow. European leaders therefore need greater political will and to be aware of the urgent requirement to fulfil the promises made in Lisbon on, for example, the Community patent, the Galileo programme and the liberalisation of gas and electricity, programmes which are vital for our future.
Nor, as yet, do we have a coherent strategy on lifelong learning. What we need now, therefore, is fresh energy to accelerate action in some key areas. We identify 10 key areas in our report for Stockholm, in particular – although I will not list them all – frontier technologies, integrated financial markets, and the new skills and mobility provided by the new European labour markets. At Stockholm, I will urge the Heads of State and Government to seize the opportunity and not to rest on their laurels: we need to push ahead resolutely with the reforms already agreed upon in Lisbon.
To give you an idea of our report, here are three important recommendations it contains. Firstly, to eliminate barriers that discourage people from entering the work force or restrict the mobility of workers. To do this, we need more efficient tax systems, more investment in education and lifelong learning and, lastly, specific measures to address the skills gap. We also need action to guarantee the portability of professional qualifications and pensions between different sectors and countries. Secondly, also by way of example, we need to accelerate economic reforms. Services represent three quarters of our gross domestic product but there is still no genuine internal market in this sector. Thirdly, Europe must be at the forefront of innovation if we are to be able to create a European Research Area. I do not need to say any more about this.
The Commission of which I have the honour of being President has always asked to be judged by what it does. That is why it is extremely important for me that cooperation between the Commission and Parliament, and the Commission's fruitful relationship with the Member States in the Council, lead to substantial, practical results. This is why I hope that this annual debate will become a valuable forum for free, open, common debate in which we can discuss our successes and problems in a constructive atmosphere, with a view to accomplishing the projects which are of real concern to the citizens of Europe.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there has to be a stable balance between our policies to ensure that all Europe's vital assets, our economic assets but also our social capital and our environment, are preserved for future generations. If we are to get that long-term balance right, we need a strategy for sustainable development. The Commission is working on just such a strategy, which will be discussed at the culmination of the current presidency, the Gothenburg European Council. We are aiming to translate the rather abstract concept of sustainable development into practical, comprehensible terms and concrete, visible action which will affect the citizens' working and everyday lives. It will therefore be a strategy for innovation and increased investment in that area, which will also exploit the opportunities provided by frontier technology: a strategy fixing prices at a level which better reflects the costs of environmental degradation.
A long-term political project of this kind clearly requires effective prior consultation. In order to promote this discussion, Madam President, I have already written to you, proposing a major debate in the European Parliament on these issues. The views expressed by this House will, indeed, be valuable to the Commission in developing its strategic proposal for the Gothenburg Summit, a proposal which, I repeat, must be practical, or it will be a weak summit.
We intend, moreover, to stimulate lively discussion not only within the European institutions but, more generally, with our citizens, by issuing a consultative document. Our aim is to achieve an all-encompassing, coherent, long-term orientation for the management of European affairs.
Turning now to the Union's relations with the rest of the world: we are receiving clearer signals from our citizens every day, telling us that if we really want to harness the potential of globalisation for the good of us all, we must be willing to take decisions in this area as well. In the short term, this means including a new round of trade negotiations in our priorities for 2001, although that is not wholly up to us. Indeed, a new round would be the best way of strengthening the multilateral system with further trade liberalisation and new rules that meet the demands of civil society.
We must also negotiate in crucial areas such as competition and investment, and focus more sharply on the interests of developing countries. Indeed, the developing countries are the key element in the whole process. Trade policy cannot just be concerned with the interests of the business world: we have to ensure that it benefits the world's poorest peoples. We therefore call upon Parliament and the Council to accept, this month, our proposal to allow the 48 poorest countries in the world to export everything but arms to the European Union quota free, tariff free across the board.
Yesterday, I received a telephone call from the United Nations Secretary-General, who has just returned from the Middle East. At the end of the conversation, he specifically asked me to call upon you and upon the Council to proceed with this project, advocated by Commissioner Lamy, the entire Commission and the presidency, which, despite all the problems it will bring us and our countries, does represent a change. We are also ready to cooperate with the new US Administration and Congress on trade issues. Naturally, President Bush has his regional priorities, but I know that he and his colleagues understand the importance of the multilateral system.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, another major milestone on the road ahead is, of course, the introduction of euro notes and coins at the end of the year. As soon as it takes the form of coins jangling in our pockets, the euro will become a tangible everyday reality for the citizens. Over the next ten and a half months, the Commission will be working hard together with the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies to complete the preparations for this extremely important event: a historical event which will have a permanent effect on the lives of Europeans. This will require a huge and – in particular – unprecedented organisational structure. However, not everyone welcomes the idea of giving up an old, familiar currency for a new and unfamiliar one, and there are bound to be some teething problems. We must therefore make every endeavour to make the public understand the advantages the euro will bring us all and that it will be the symbol of a vigorous, modern economy. In any case, it is already the symbol of a typically European project, carried through on time, as planned, by Europe for Europe.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to conclude by returning to the issue I raised earlier: the debate on the future of Europe after Nice. Despite all the limitations of the Treaty of Nice that we have already discussed, it does, to my mind, have two merits: firstly, its very existence, which is no small achievement. As far as we are concerned, there are now no further obstacles to enlargement. Secondly, it opens up the broader, post-Nice debate on the future of the European Union. As I said to you in January, and in line with the declaration annexed to the Treaty, the first stage of the process will be one of "open reflection". This will enable the December European Council to initiate a second stage, which I have termed "structured reflection", leading ultimately to a brief, decisive Intergovernmental Conference. I am convinced that this is the right approach and there seems to be widespread agreement on it.
What I want to talk about chiefly today in this Chamber is the first stage, because it relates to 2001. The open reflection stage, which we have already entered, is, in my opinion, crucial for three reasons: firstly because of the paradox that the words and actions of the European citizens are making more obvious every day, that Europe is increasingly necessary but also seen as increasingly remote. We therefore need a debate which will involve everybody and all levels of society if we are to relaunch and complete the great project of establishing a European Union. Secondly, the disappointing outcome of the Nice Conference. What was missing at Nice was, above all, an in-depth discussion in the preparatory stages about what we want from Europe and for Europe. The talks went on and on, but they never touched on the fundamental issues. This debate can be postponed no longer. Thirdly and finally, there is an increasingly widespread impression, which I share, that the method common in the past of constructive ambiguities, of leaving things unsaid, is no longer appropriate.
I know that, on these occasions, the tradition is for the Commission President to present a detailed review of the policies implemented, but I am sure that nobody will object if I depart somewhat from that tradition and confine today's discussion to our main priorities for 2001 and to the longer-term question of Europe's future.
We have now entered a new stage in which the basic issues are staring us in the face and cannot be ignored. Since 1981, first the Community and then the Union have been going through a continual process of adjustment, restructuring, enlargement and adaptation. For almost a whole generation, a constant earth tremor has been shaking our institutions, and it has swept away the landmarks familiar to the public in our countries and sown doubt over the wisdom of our decisions and of the direction in which we are headed. We have taken decisions of historic dimension which will unite the continent. It would be both absurd and dangerous to build this unity around a vague agreement, around fuzzy undertakings and conflicting hidden agendas. So what public debate are we talking about? It has to be a constitutional debate on the fundamental nature of the Union. I trust the judgment of our citizens and their elected representatives provided the debate is pitched at the right level: this is not about the curvature of cucumbers or Euromyths and distortions but about genuine issues, issues of concern to the citizens, most of whom want Europe to do more, not less.
The questions the European citizens ask are not about cucumbers, but we have to admit that they are not chiefly about the institutional debate in which we have been engaged since Maastricht and which is now – we cannot deny it, especially after Nice – going round in circles. I think the real problem is that, somewhere along the way, we lost the thread of the agreement between our Member States on which direction we should be taking. Our disagreements are less and less easily hidden behind the hair-splitting protocols and the complex formulas. These disagreements arise partly, I feel, because the debate has been poorly conducted in recent years. Too often it has been an argument purely about power. We must get to the heart of the issues.
There is bound to be some disagreement on the ultimate purpose of the Union for, thankfully, we are all different, but I find some consolation in the thought that we can at least agree on the essentials. This brings us to the heart of the matter, to the fundamental questions I want publicly discussed. For example: are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity? Are we all aware of the vital issues at stake here and upon which the future of our communities depends? Do we realise that our nation States, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage? Another question: how much social and economic solidarity are we prepared to show one another? Not just to prevent monetary shocks or to prevent the internal market breaking up but because we believe that our peoples should help one another, taking part in a joint enterprise. And again: are we prepared to show the same solidarity when it comes to internal and external security? Then: what sort of environment shall we leave to future generations? Finally: what are the most effective ways of enabling the European peoples to protect and uphold the values of democracy, solidarity and justice?
To my mind, these are the sorts of questions we should ask in this year's debate. They are specifically political, not institutional, and it is in answering them that we will decide the level at which we wish to live and work together.
By opening this great debate on these subjects, I am not asking you or the citizens to embark upon a discussion with no fixed parameters. It is not a case of ‘back to the drawing board’. We are talking about a Europe that has achieved many great, useful things during the 50 years since the Community and Union were founded, a Europe that has achieved peace and prosperity and, most recently, established the single currency.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, these are the questions that you, together with the members of our national parliaments, and our governments, must start to ask and answer. Let me be clear on this: I am not confusing the public debate, which must be completely open to civil society, with democratic representation. European and national parliaments have the legitimacy of being elected. When the time comes for a structured debate leading to concrete results, the method we follow must take account of that.
We shall then be entering the second stage, following Laeken. No one now imagines that this stage can proceed without European and national parliaments being closely involved, firstly because Europe is not just a matter of cooperation between States – it is also about relations between peoples and has long been so – but also because the deadlock between nationalistic positions will not produce the vision and imagination needed for a fundamental rethink of Europe.
After Laeken, once suitable preparations have been made, the structured debate will have to be based on a formula which unites all the key players – the European Parliament, the national parliaments, the governments and the Commission – a formula which will be increasingly refined by Laeken itself and the subsequent European Councils in 2002. It is from this ongoing dialogue between the European Council and the convention, or conference or assembly or forum, whatever we choose to call it (let us not get into the dangerous territory of terminology) that the right questions would be able to emerge. Finally, all the institutional implications could be drawn from it.
Clearly, then, there can be no question of limiting the scope of this exercise to the four topics listed at Nice. I fully endorse what Mr Michel Barnier said to your Committee on Constitutional Affairs, namely that what must emerge from the post-Nice debate is a coherent, durable design for our enlarged Union. The Commission will, of course, contribute its share of the work and take a number of initiatives. It has already done so by proposing, in particular, the reorganisation of the Treaties, which is already on the table. It will do so again by helping Parliament and the successive Presidencies to organise the "deeper and wider debate" called for in the Nice declaration. It will also do so through the White Paper on governance.
Do not expect the White Paper to deliver a ready-made definition of the competences of the Union and the States. It will not take up positions on constitutional questions. What it will do is help by proposing ways of genuinely decentralising the administration of the Union and ways of applying our common policies at the most appropriate level, that is, as closely as possible to the citizens.
I will not dwell on the last 12 months. When I stood before this House, a year ago, I announced the four strategic objectives that my Commission had set itself: one, to promote new forms of governance on a European scale; two, to stabilise Europe and consolidate our influence in the world; three, to set new economic and social priorities; and four, to improve the quality of life for all.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is sometimes said – and I tend to agree – that European integration was the most important event in the second half of the twentieth century. And with dependable regularity, at every stage of European integration, certain critics have decried the project as an impossible, or even laughable, utopian dream. When the European currency was first conceived, comments were made which I cannot bring myself to repeat. Instead, at the end of 2001, we shall see coins and bank notes being issued. We have got to where we are, and we should be proud of it.
With a view to improving the quality of life of the European citizens, we published our White Paper on Food Safety and a proposal for a regulation laying down requirements and basic principles in the area of food safety. We also proposed to set up a European Food Agency, which will come into operation next year.
In addition to this, we proposed to set up a European Air Safety Authority and prepared new, tough legislation on maritime safety following the
disaster.
To promote a new social and economic agenda for Europe, we put forward detailed, ambitious proposals to the Lisbon European Council. As a result, the EU now has an integrated strategy that will allow it to become the most dynamic, competitive knowledge-based economy in the world.
The key to stabilising our continent is our strategy for enlarging the European Union. Throughout 2000, the Commission resolutely pursued accession negotiations with the candidate countries, and we also launched the public debate on a genuine migration policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples