Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-07-22-Speech-4-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040722.1.4-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I would like to thank you for all the questions you have put to me and I shall try to answer all of them, and I in fact answered some of them yesterday. I would firstly like to address the honourable Members from Greece, who played a very active part in the debate. In a spirit of fair play, I wish to congratulate them on their victory in the European Football Championship hosted by Portugal. I know that organising a championship on that scale is a major task, and I would therefore like to wish our Greek friends every success in hosting the forthcoming Olympic Games. I would like to assure those who will not be voting for me that I shall display the same sense of fair play that I have shown about Greece's victory in Euro 2004.
Another question also put to me related to the selection of Commissioners, and in particular as to whether or not there should be super-Commissioners. This question was put to me by several honourable Members, notably by Mrs Ludford. I do not want to have just one super-Commissioner in my Commission – I would like to have 24 super-Commissioners, because I believe that there is a vital principle at stake here: the principle of collegiality. The Commission needs to maintain that principle. I have not yet taken a final decision – I can only take it once I have received your endorsement – about the structure of the Commission, but this is one of the responsibilities of the President of the Commission, it is not the responsibility of the European Council, and I shall therefore exercise my responsibility as regards allocating the various Commission portfolios. The principle of collegiality also applies here; we will not trespass on the territory of other institutions, but equally the Council may not trespass on that of the Commission. It is my responsibility and I shall exercise that responsibility.
The issue of transparency and openness was raised with me by a number of Members, including Mr Evans, Mr Bonde, Mr Lundgren and Mrs Martens. I am committed to the Commission being open, effective and accountable. I believe that the European Parliament has a very important role to play in monitoring the work of the Commission. In order carry out this monitoring role, the Members of the European Parliament need information, and I am prepared to give you that information. Furthermore, the positive work already initiated by President Prodi in this area must be acknowledged. Mr Bonde asked me a number of specific questions and I would like to reply to them. I already know that you have informally been provided with information on the whole list of groups of experts and working groups. I hope that the Commission will be able to provide Parliament with full information on these groups of experts and working groups on a regular basis. I know that the Commission has been working with the Court of Auditors so as to provide this institution with everything it needs. I am willing to work with you, and particularly with the Committee on Budgetary Control, as regards financial control of the Commission.
I have already said that I have not yet taken a final decision as to the structure of the Commission, but there is one decision that I have taken, and that is that the Commissioner responsible for the budget will not be the same as the Commissioner responsible for audit and control. As I see it, that is the best guarantee of the control function. As regards your wider questions about documentation and information, I am willing to provide Parliament with that information. I would like to consider with you how we can improve on the current situation. As to the issue of ‘whistleblowers’, the Commission has already reviewed its staff regulations, and Commission staff are accordingly now clearly responsible for reporting all irregularities, and the Commission is obliged to protect the rights of officials who report such irregularities.
Turning to the issue of gender and to the number of women Commissioners, a question raised yesterday by Mr Maaten and again today by Mrs Ludford, Mrs Segelström and Mrs Záborská, as well as by a number of other Members of both sexes. I am in favour of equal opportunities. I am in favour of equal rights for men and women. I regard that as axiomatic in our culture, and I believe it to be a human rights issue where there is no room for compromise. Yesterday I said that I am determined to have a greater proportion of women Commissioners than has been the case up to now, but a number of women Members have asked me today exactly what my objective is. I shall tell you what my objective is, but I cannot assume sole responsibility for it, because it also depends on national governments. That is where you can help me with some of your governments, particularly those that have not yet taken a decision about the name of the Commissioner they wish to propose to me. My objective is that one third of the Commissioners working with me should be women. That is my objective, and I shall fight to achieve it, I shall do my utmost to realise it. I cannot guarantee that I shall succeed, but I can assure you that I am committed to achieving that outcome.
Some of the most frequently asked questions were about economic and social issues, and in particular the issue of social cohesion and the Lisbon agenda. Members who asked me questions on these issues included Mr Schultz, Mr Poignon, Mr António Costa, Mr Itälä, Mrs Figueiredo, Mr Titley, Mr Rasmussen, Mr Rosati, Mr Paasilina and Mr Hökmark. Let me repeat, ladies and gentlemen, that you should not believe the caricatures of my political profile that you sometimes come across. I believe that it is possible to combine a social vision with a reforming agenda in relation to markets that would make Europe one of the most competitive areas in the world, if not the most competitive. I do not deny that it is very difficult, but we need to work in that direction. We cannot cast aside the European social model for the sake of competitiveness. That is why I see the Lisbon agenda as an economic agenda, an agenda for competitiveness, but also a social agenda and an agenda for environmental protection. We need to do more to increase competition and the internal market, and to make a technological leap forward and increase productivity, we need to invest in education and human resources and to seek clean technologies. Yet at the same time we have to choose one priority and that priority must be growth and employment. That must clearly be our priority and we will have an opportunity to define it in the mid-term review of the Lisbon agenda that is being prepared by former Prime Minister Wim Kok. I hope that we will try to make growth and job creation our priorities, because those are the factors that can genuinely guarantee the social agenda. But we can only create jobs if we have economic growth, that is the issue, and we therefore need to step up Europe's productivity and competitiveness in order to create jobs, because that is what our fellow citizens are most concerned about. That is also why, when it comes to the Stability and Growth Pact, an issue already raised with me today by Mr Rasmussen, Mr Rossati, Mrs De Vits and many others, I said and can repeat this: it does not seem sensible to me to consider revising the Treaty that created the Stability and Growth Pact, we really are not going to do that. What we can do, and there are already some ideas floating around about this, is to look for flexible interpretations without undermining the essential principles of the Stability and Growth Pact, so that it does not interfere with our assumptions about growth. That is the direction I wish to go in.
As regards the Financial Perspectives, particularly in relation to the new Member States, I would like to reply to the questions asked by Members including Mrs Vaidere, Mrs Kósáné Kovács, Mr Rouček and Mr Pahor. Especially for the new Member States, I regard this as a priority, as the new Member States need the cohesion and solidarity of the European Union just as some of us, including my own country, have benefited from that solidarity. It is not a zero sum game, a game in which what some gain others lose. The help we can give to the new Member States is good for Europe, and what is good for Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Baltic states, for Slovakia or Slovenia is good for Europe as a whole. I am convinced that growth in these countries will make an important contribution to the overall growth of the European Union and for that reason I intend to advocate ambitious Financial Perspectives. Building on the foundations laid by the Prodi Commission, I will advocate such Financial Perspectives, and this is another area where I need your help in winning over those members of the Council who have not yet been convinced of the importance of the solidarity and cohesion policy.
Turning to the question of media pluralism, an issue which Mrs Napoletano raised yesterday and Mrs Gruber today, this is a very important subject which goes to the heart of our democracy and the issue of Europe's cultural diversity. The Commission has already considered this subject, notably in its Green Paper in the mid-nineties. Media pluralism is a principle that is clearly recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and which is now enshrined in the Constitution itself. Your questions relate to a Commission initiative. We need to be sure that there is an EU legal basis for the Commission to legislate in this area. There are questions that still need to be clarified. We should not underestimate the difficulties associated with this subject, although I would like to make it absolutely clear that I personally am in favour of respect across the board for the principles of pluralism of information.
I also understand the sensitivity and concerns surrounding the subject of GMOs – genetically modified organisms. Precisely because this is such a sensitive subject, the Union has established a comprehensive regulatory framework for GMOs so as to ensure a scientifically based system suitable for dealing with all these issues. I am convinced that this system should now be applied with firmness and determination, because our credibility is at stake here. The time has come to demonstrate to Europe's citizens and to our trading partners that the European authorisation system is working as it was intended to. The truth is that this system is the most advanced in the world, and we cannot therefore afford to sacrifice our credibility here. I of course want this system to be implemented and I wish to assure this House that if I am at its helm, the Commission will attach the greatest importance to this matter, which warrants the efforts being made in connection with it.
In conclusion, I would like to deal with the questions about the very concept of the European Union that so many Members have put to me. I cannot of course support those who would like to abolish the Commission and to do away with the European Union altogether. But I would ask for the support of all those who wish to carry the European project forward, and I shall take the liberty at this point of taking issue with those Members who said that as my views fall into one particular part of the political spectrum and theirs into another, they intend to vote against me. Frankly, I do not consider that to be reasonable, because if you behave that way there would never be a stable majority in this House, and it would always be impossible to choose a President of the Commission. By the same token, I cannot agree with those Members who say they are not voting against me personally, but against me as the Council's candidate. Fine, then you might as well say that there would never be a President of the Commission under the current rules. We are a Union of states and of citizens. I do not regard the two as incompatible, and this is my reply to Mrs Ludford and also to the honourable Member who spoke just now about my convictions: there is no incompatibility between having a grand vision and strong convictions on the one hand, and on the other hand acting pragmatically as to how they should be implemented, and that is my position. I have strong non-negotiable convictions, particularly when it comes to freedom and the rule of law. I believe that the war against terrorism should be waged without infringing our fundamental freedoms. Security yes, but not an obsession with security. I am in favour of freedom, which I see as essential. I have clearly stated my values: freedom, respect for human rights, the rule of law, equal opportunities and solidarity. I regard those values as non-negotiable and my position is absolutely unambiguous. But as President of the Commission, I shall certainly seek compromises, because I am not here just as a representative of one political family, and I am convinced that the President of the Commission should work with the PPE family, with the Liberals and Democrats, with the Socialists and with other Members in various groups who essentially agree on making progress with the European project. Without compromise, Europe will not move forward, ladies and gentlemen. This does not betoken a lack of conviction, it means that I am convinced of the virtues of pluralism, of compromise and of the Community method. We have a grand vision for Europe, let there be no doubt. We have deeply-rooted convictions but we intend to realise them in a pragmatic way. That is why, returning to the image Mr Watson used yesterday, and which I have already used myself, the image of an aircraft with no one in the cockpit, I believe that the European Union cannot function on automatic pilot. There is no modern aviation system that holds the secret to doing that. In order to function, the European Union needs political leadership. It functions on the basis of political courage and I can promise you that I shall endeavour to exercise that political leadership not in a party political way, but by seeking a dynamic consensus, because I believe that the Commission can indeed be the pilot of the European Union, which is in a decisive phase of its history with the conclusion of the enlargement of the EU, thus demonstrating our solidarity and looking forward to peace, prosperity, security and solidarity, not just within our own continent but also beyond it.
To conclude, that is why I am asking you for your support, because if I receive your endorsement I shall, as President of the Commission, be seeking to unite all of Europe, from the Mediterranean to the Baltic, from the founding members of the European Union to those who have just joined, from the richest countries to the poorest, from the largest countries to the smallest, and I shall try not just to be the honest broker that is needed between the institutions, but also to be a unifying force to advance our European project. I know that many people are pessimistic about Europe, but, ladies and gentlemen, we need to have a sense of time. What was Europe like 50 years ago? What has it become today? What was Europe like just a few years ago when it was divided by the Berlin Wall and the Baltic countries were occupied by another power, when freedom did not exist across a large part of our continent, and what is it like now? We are better placed today than we were 50 years ago. My desire is that in another 50 years' time we will be in a far better position than we are today. That is what I propose to achieve, with your help and your solidarity.
Turning to your specific questions, I have arranged my replies in clusters, something I am very much in favour of in such cases. First then, international issues, on which I shall reply in particular to the questions by Mr Watson, Mrs De Sarnez, Mr Schultz, Mr Ortuondo Larrea and Mr Kristovskis about a strong European presence on the world stage. I am in favour of Europe continuing to take the lead on environmental issues, especially climate change issues relating to Kyoto. I am in favour of Europe continuing to be in the vanguard on free and fair trade in the context of the Doha negotiations and of Europe promoting a multilateral approach both to political issues and to trade issues. I am in favour of Europe playing an active part in development, and in particular combating world poverty. Africa is, of course, a priority here. But we must also fight epidemics like AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. I believe that in this area Europe has a social duty that it cannot abdicate. That is also why we need resources in the new Financial Perspectives to match our ambitions, and we must also endeavour to meet our commitments in relation to the United Nations Millennium Declaration, together with our Monterrey commitments on development aid.
Turning more specifically to foreign policy, and to security and defence policy, I wish to respond to a number of questions, in particular those from Mr Pinheiro and Mr Wiersma, by saying that I believe that we should develop a European defence identity. The new Constitution – the new Constitutional Treaty – will help us to consolidate that security and defence identity. I also believe that we can work with the High Representative, the future Minister for Foreign Affairs of the European Union. As a matter of fact, I am already preparing this work with Javier Solana, because I believe that there is work to be done here.
I would now like to move on to the question of Iraq, which I also addressed yesterday, but where I have something to add. The fact is that Iraq demonstrated that there is not yet a common European policy. It was not my country that caused the breakdown in European unity. Various EU Member States, including some that are members of the United Nations Security Council, adopted differing positions. That is the reality. It is not the Commission that has to define the foreign policy of the European Union. Under the current system that is still an intergovernmental matter. What I can tell you is that as President of the Commission, I shall try to work, particularly with the new EU Minister for Foreign Affairs provided for in the new treaty, towards progressively achieving a coherent EU policy and ensuring that the European Union speaks with a single voice. At present, the truth of the matter is that Iraq has demonstrated that this is not the case yet, and that is why I do not think it is helpful today to discuss who was in the right here. We now need to find ways of bringing our positions closer together, and the most recent resolution unanimously approved by the UN Security Council provides some of the ingredients for such a convergence of views. It is in our interest to work together on Iraq, and to attempt to reach a common vision, particularly on stabilising Iraq and the surrounding region, a vision of an independent and sovereign Iraq, an Iraq at peace with itself and with its neighbours. I shall accordingly try to respond to the questions put to me by Mr Wurtz, Mr Swoboda, Mr António Costa, Mrs Napoletano, Mr Wiersma, Mrs Frassoni, Mrs Gruber, Mr Paasilina, and all the others, by saying that in future, as President of the Commission – if I receive your endorsement – I shall attempt, as far as I possibly can, and working together with the Member States, to ensure that there is a common vision, something of which there has not been any sign amongst the Member States nor even, if we are honest, within our respective political families. This has been a painful issue and one that we need to move on from now. But as regards Iraq, and also our relations with the United States in particular, I wish to repeat what I said yesterday. I am very proud to be a European. If you confirm me as President of the Commission, it will fall to me to defend Europe's general interests and common good, and not country A or country B's foreign policy stance. I will not be bound by the foreign policy of one government or another, but I shall be engaged in seeking a common foreign policy for the European Union as a whole.
As regards relations with the United States, a question raised by various honourable Members, including Mr Swoboda, Mrs Mussolini, Mr Schultz and Mr Evans, I believe that it is important that the European Union should not define itself in terms of its opposition to any given country or region. We have our own identity. We do not need to define ourselves as being in opposition to the United States, to China, to Russia or to any other global power. I believe that it is in our interest to ensure that the United States is constructively engaged in major global issues such as the environment, the battle against underdevelopment and the major epidemics. That is what I shall try to achieve if I am elected President of the Commission.
Another issue mentioned here was Turkey, one of the most difficult issues we face. Mrs Grossetête, Mrs De Sarnez, Mr Martinez, Mr Mulder and Mr Belder in particular referred to Turkey. This will be a key decision for the European Union. Before any decision is taken in December, both the Commission and the Council should listen to Parliament's opinion on this issue. It is not possible for me at this stage to assume or presume what the final outcome of this process will be. Nor do I know yet what the Commission's position will be on the report still being prepared by the Prodi Commission, but I can tell you that I agree with you when you say that this is an important issue for debate, and that any decision that may be taken must be made known in the clearest terms to everyone, starting with the Members of this House. Nor is this a decision that can be made on religious grounds: referring to the comments made by certain honourable Members, I would say that it is my conviction that our Union, our Community, is based on law and on human rights; it can never be a Union based on any form of religious bias. That is vital as far as I am concerned. I also wish to say, regardless of the Turkish issue, that we need to have a special policy towards our neighbours, that is to say our neighbours to the east, in the Balkans and in the Mediterranean region. That is why I spoke about this as being a priority yesterday. It is my belief that the European Union's foreign policy cannot do everything at the same time – not everything can be a priority. If you simultaneously treat everything as a priority, then you end up with nothing being a priority. What we need is a constructive policy in order to spread prosperity and stability to our immediate neighbours, to the east, in the Balkans and in the Mediterranean region, in addition to our active contribution through multilateral world organisations, and above all through the United Nations. We must therefore strengthen our relations with our immediate neighbours, because our own security and stability also depend to a large extent on our doing so.
Turning to the institutional issues you addressed, and in particular the process of my own nomination, that question was raised by Mr Schultz, Mr Swoboda, Mr Martin, Mr Cohn-Bendit, Mr Ortuondo Larrea, and also by Mr Dehaene. I understand the reservations that exist about the present method for choosing the President of the Commission, but the Treaties have been complied with. In any case, in order to demonstrate my own concerns about this, I made myself available to appear before all the political groups in the European Parliament, so that I went well beyond my obligations under the Treaty to show my respect for Parliament. The new European Constitution, the new Constitutional Treaty, adds a political dimension to the selection of the President of the Commission. It is now largely up to you, the European Parliament, in conjunction with the Council, to find a more concrete way for the Council to justify its choice or the political criteria it applies in selecting the President of the Commission in the future, or to be precise in 2009. Let me make myself clear and say that I do not just wish to be the Council's candidate, although I am of course very honoured to have received the unanimous support of the Council, but if I am elected I will be the candidate elected by the Council and by this House. That is why I am here presenting my views and replying to your questions, and that is what I shall do. I would like to reiterate that if I am elected, I shall defend Europe's common interest by endeavouring, if necessary, to stand up to the vested interests of the Member States, by seeking to strike a balance between all the Member States, large, medium-sized and small alike, as they are all important. Their dignity is exactly the same, regardless of their size. With regard to the question put to me by Mr Swoboda, that is the issue of my having submitted my resignation as Prime Minister, that decision was a sign of respect for this Parliament. It would not be correct under our system, under the Portuguese system that is, where the President of the Republic has certain powers, for Portugal to have spent a month waiting to know if its Prime Minister had or had not been elected President of the Commission. That is why I do not stand before you here today as a Head of Government: I am simply a Member of the Portuguese Parliament. I stand before you as one of you, presenting my ideas and submitting myself to your approval. I regard that as a sign of respect for this House.
Another question put to me by many honourable Members, notably Mr de Villiers, Mrs Bonino and Mr Carlos Coelho, was the issue of relations between the Commission and Parliament, and I would like to use the expression that I used in my address, ‘a close positive relationship’. The European Union makes progress when these two institutions, the Commission and the European Parliament, work hand in hand, respecting each other's powers of course, so that the Commission does not try to usurp Parliament, nor, of course, does Parliament trespass on the Commission's territory. But when these two institutions work hand in hand, Europe moves forward, and that is the way I want to go.
As regards the debate about the future of Europe and about ratification – an issue raised by Mr Schultz, Mrs Grossetête and Mr Dehaene in particular – I would like to say that this is a debate that we have to win at national level, and all politicians, be they Members of the European Parliament, members of national parliaments or others, can take part in this debate. As an institution, it falls to the Commission to provide credible and serious information about what is happening. For that reason, the job of communication will be a vital one, but I think that this task is one that requires us to have the political courage to combat the apathy that I mentioned to Mrs Bonino and other Members of this House. I personally will make myself available to participate in this debate, wherever and whenever you want me to, but I repeat that it is a debate that has to be won at national level."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples