Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-14-Speech-2-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040914.2.2-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, I should now like to address you as President of the House.
I approached the 25 Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the Union with a view to expressing this feeling in the most solemn and collective manner possible. I suggested all schools across the Union should join us, the representatives of the citizens of Europe, in a minute’s silence today in memory of the child victims of the Beslan school killings and more generally, in memory of all other child victims of terrorism. I am happy to say that several countries have already agreed to participate, thus allowing European citizens to express their feelings on these terrible events.
This House condemns and rejects all terrorist acts because, regardless of its affiliation or the country where it takes place, terrorism negates the very values on which the European Union is based. The people hope a united Europe will be better able to combat this threat, which is one of the main causes of concern and insecurity in the region.
I am bound to say that expressing the horror we feel is not enough. When condemnations follow each other in quick succession, our words of anguish come to reflect frustration and impotence. There can be no excuse or reason for events as ghastly as those we witnessed towards the end of the summer or for what took place on 11 September in New York, or on 11 March in Madrid. Terrorism of all kinds is to be condemned. The debate currently taking place at world level, however, especially in our western and developed world, concerns how to combat terrorism in all its forms, rather than condemning it. Obviously, suicidal fanaticism will not be brought to an end by reasonable arguments put forward by cultured and intelligent individuals. On the other hand, one cannot expect to eliminate all its causes through the simple and indiscriminate use of force, taking revenge on other children for the harm inflicted on our own and triggering an unbearable spiral of violence.
The war on terrorism will not be won if terrorism is perceived as a conventional war. This House should develop the area of freedom and security. It must actively promote an anti-terrorist strategy based on international cooperation involving the police, the judiciary and the intelligence services. International cooperation is also needed to tackle the underlying causes breeding murderous and suicidal fanaticism.
No analysis equates to justification. Parliament’s debates and resolutions should never be interpreted as justification for terrorist violence. The fight against terrorism requires us to consider its causes in order to combat it more effectively. Parliament must continue to debate with full freedom of conscience, as it has done to date. In particular, it must consider the situation in Chechnya, in Iraq and in Palestine, regardless of the angry reactions that may follow.
Ladies and gentlemen, a further source of concern and insecurity in Europe has featured in the news this summer. I refer to the increasingly common decision to transfer companies’ economic activity within an integrated economic area, in order to benefit from a more favourable fiscal and labour situation. This has become known as relocation.
You will have noted that this phenomenon produces a defensive reaction in certain Member States that can impact on the Union’s solidarity policies. It certainly makes very clear the conflict of interest between economic competitiveness and social cohesion. These two aims ought to be complementary for us. Both are vital to the building of Europe and to the Lisbon Strategy in particular.
This is all more complicated than it appears. A simple numerical comparison of labour costs is probably not the only explanation of the phenomenon. The debate is bound to be of particular interest to those Europeans hoping Europe will prove to be a solution, not a problem. It should therefore feature prominently in Parliament’s work, and mainstreamed in the many issues filling our agenda. I shall refer to these later.
I venture to remind you first that the primary duty of the House is to contribute to the optimum performance of the enlarged Parliament. Romania and Bulgaria will soon be represented here too. It is important for Parliament to bear in mind that it is an institution in receipt of public funds facing new challenges of size and efficiency. I shall myself chair a working group tasked with ensuring that the size of the House does not detract from its effectiveness.
Two issues are particularly significant in this connection, namely the Statute for Members and the language regime. I stated earlier that the Statute would be a priority issue. Accordingly, on 8 September, I met with Mr Balkenende, President-in-Office of the Council, who assured me that he would make contact as appropriate with representatives of the governments that were unable to endorse the draft Statute, and establish what alternative measures they had in mind. I should remind you that Parliament was never informed of the reasons why certain countries were unable to agree to the draft.
I will begin by saying how honoured I am that you have decided to place your trust in me and choose me as President of Parliament. At the time you elected me, I said I would wait until this plenary sitting to outline my strategic vision of the first half of this legislature to you.
I do not believe that the consensus reached in the House should be jeopardised until this information is received. I would like to reiterate, however, that we remain fully prepared to enter into dialogue and open to any suggestions made by the Council or the Member States best placed to promote an agreement.
Concerning the language regime, I must remind the House that its implementation is governed by provisions laid down by the Bureau of the previous Parliament, through a Code of Conduct on Multilingualism. I appeal to all Members, especially to the committee bureaux and coordinators, to make every effort to ensure correct application of the Code, bearing in mind the scant interpreting and translation resources available. It will be some time before the situation improves. I urge you all to make a sustained effort to adjust the language cover for working meetings to the resources available.
In the previous plenary certain Members argued for the right to express themselves in their mother tongue, even when it is not yet an official Union language. In this regard, I must point out to them that the language regime is authorised by Council agreements. A unanimous decision in Council is required. Until the relevant decisions are taken, the Presidency must insist on compliance with the Rules of Procedure, regardless of its personal views on the matter.
I should also like to emphasise that if and when the Constitutional Treaty is ratified, the European Parliament will come of age. It will then have a framework in which its roles and responsibilities are defined once and for all.
Nonetheless, if it is eventually ratified, the Constitution will not come into force until 1 November 2006. In the meantime, one of the main tasks before the House is to stimulate a wide-ranging debate on ratification of the Constitutional Treaty.
Between 29 October, the date when the Constitutional Treaty is to be signed in Rome, and 1 November 2006, when it is due to come into force, my Presidency will be dominated by the ratification of the European Constitution in the 25 Member States. Ratifications are set to take place at the rate of roughly one a month. In most cases, the procedure will involve a referendum. My home country, Spain, will be the first to hold its referendum, in February 2005.
This two-year period will be an excellent opportunity for Europeans to learn about the Europe they wish to create, as it is defined in the text. It will be a chance for the citizens to assess what such a Europe could mean for them and why it is important for them.
Members of this House are called upon to be at the service of the citizens. Creative ways of communicating with the latter and establishing helpful positions for them must be found. A report drafted by Mr Corbett and Mr Mendez de Vigo and debated in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is to be adopted before the end of the year.
Parliament must strive to become a genuine European assembly. It must become a model of open, plural and democratic debate. It must not be dismissive, hypocritical or claim a monopoly over European spirit or logic. Nobody can claim ownership of the one true idea of Europe. The debate is bound to be complex due to the range of identities and ideologies, and the different ways in which the various parties understand the notion of Europe we want to achieve.
This is why the key issues in the draft Constitution must be dealt with in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, in major debates. I have asked the Chairman of this committee to forward me specific proposals on which to base the parliamentary debate.
Obviously, this does not entail presenting a political programme or putting forward my own ideas on the building of Europe. As President, my aim is simply to describe the priorities on our agenda and place them in context.
The debate itself is not as important as the way it is perceived by the citizens, however. The latter need to be informed on the nature of the Constitution, on what it does and does not actually contain. It is crucial for them to vote on the text of the Constitutional Treaty itself, and not in response to the political situation in each of their countries.
Once Parliament has formed its opinion, it must ensure that its view is known and taken into account in the ratification process. It is most regrettable that the latter will not be more genuinely pan-European, close to the people, and that it will not take place in all countries!
Our main challenge must be to Europeanise the debate and ensure internal political issues do not impinge on it, as was the case in the recent European elections.
The House will liaise with the national parliaments. It already worked closely with the latter during the Convention. In addition, I shall personally chair a working group tasked with promoting the Constitution as a political project that will be the subject of the most significant debate Europeans have engaged in since they set out together to journey into the future, leaving behind the devastation of war. I invite you all to play your part.
Parliament needs to deal with some more pressing issues beforehand. The first of these is the investiture of the Commission. Certain press reports have alleged that this is merely a formality. There are those who believe that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and that the House will simply go through the motions, and not provide any added political value. You know that is not the case, ladies and gentlemen. The House must prove it to the world.
Members are entitled to their views on the Barroso Commission. Nonetheless, its investiture presents a splendid opportunity to make the main guidelines of its programme known. It is also an opportunity to become acquainted with the personal and political talents of the men and women who make up the incoming Commission, and to become aware of what Parliament’s political groups are demanding of it. The Commission is, of course, the engine of the Community’s government.
At the start of my address I referred to two major issues currently causing insecurity in Europe, namely terror and the social factors affecting employment. The new Commission’s statements and proposals on these two subjects are eagerly anticipated, as are its views on reform of the Stability Pact. The Prodi Commission’s initial response is already known, and it is also known that the Commissioner concerned will remain in office.
There will also be an opportunity to continue debating the proposed reform of this Pact, which has such considerable bearing on the Lisbon Strategy. Mr Barroso has placed it at the top of his agenda.
Questions must be asked concerning how the Commission intends to make Europe a model where environmental issues, sustainable development and development aid are concerned. The Commission’s views on the concentration of the media in Europe, and on how it might react to this problem, also need to be ascertained.
It is important to establish the Commission’s approach to the relationship between Europe and other continents and with the Islamic world, and also its approach to the development of the Euro-Mediterranean relationship and reinvigorating the flagging Barcelona process.
As I do so, I should like to share with you my pride in belonging to this, the greatest of all multinational parliamentary institutions. It stands for peace and democracy whilst respecting diversity. Although many Europeans are not sufficiently aware of the fact, this House is a forum for debates and decisions affecting our daily lives and the future of the world we are to live in.
We are eager to learn what kind of relationship the Commission intends to forge with this House, and how it envisages its relationship with the Council’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy during this transitional stage.
All these issues will be raised. An effort will also be made to ensure that hearings are livelier, more spontaneous and less rigid than in the past.
Once the Commission has been invested, in my capacity as President of this House, I shall call on it to increase its presence in the European Parliament. I shall ask the President of the Commission to hold regular meetings with the presidents of the political groups. I shall ask the Council to do likewise, particularly Mr Solana, the European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
The House must continue its usual legislative work, in which the Reach Directive on chemical products stands out. In addition, however, there are three important matters to be discussed before the end of the year.
Given its strategic importance, I shall mention Turkey first. The Conference of Presidents is due to receive the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr Erdogan, on 23 September, as we hoped. Mr Erdogan will therefore visit Parliament prior to the Commission tabling its report, as was our wish.
In theory, Parliament has no say in the decision on whether or not to open accession negotiations in December. Consequently, the House is not required to express its view on the matter. It would, however, be inconceivable for us not to make our voice heard at the start of this long journey because at the end of it, whenever that might be, the agreement of the House will be required. It should be borne in mind that the important thing about journeys is not their length, but where they lead.
In my view, the House should prepare a report on the accession of Turkey before the December European Council, so that we can make our views known to the latter.
Ladies and gentlemen, issues such as Turkish accession serve to justify Parliament’s existence. They are an opportunity for the House to become involved, and cease to be a mere spectator. Decisions of this nature could be times when the two sources of legitimacy do not coincide. Governments may come to a different conclusion from the people. It is certainly an excellent opportunity to debate the nature of the Europe we hope to create, and the consequences of going about it in one way rather than another.
It is very much to be hoped, therefore, that the Commission will produce an objective report. This would enable the House and the Council to form a political judgment in full awareness of the consequences of a decision one way or the other. I refer to the implications of Turkey’s accession for the Union, and the implications its rejection could have for our relations with the Islamic world. The same applies to acceptance or rejection of the Constitution.
Parliament needs to free itself from all preconceived ideas and unfounded reactions as it engages in this debate. The debate should be seen as part of the strategic perspective, with a view to the medium term.
Our shared pride must go hand in hand with a sense of responsibility. It is incumbent on us to be responsible as we exercise our powers, determine our stance on international affairs, and ensure the smooth operation of this enlarged Parliament.
This is because the House needs to be aware, as I am sure it is, that the most important challenge facing the Europe of the future is its relationship with the Islamic world. That relationship involves Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
It is also a relationship underpinned by a new neighbourhood policy, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and the integration of immigrants into our cities. There are 10 million Muslims in Europe and 1 000 million in the world. Regardless of the decision taken, it is incumbent on us to prove to the Islamic world that we do not set our borders according to the clash of civilisations some are determined to bring about.
By way of contribution to our debate, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to inform you that I have received a report drawn up for the Commission by an expert group including three distinguished Members of this House. The report has kindly been made available to the European Parliament. Allow me to suggest that it is well worth reading.
The House will also need to take a decision on the financial perspectives before the end of the year. The Commission has completed its initial draft and we are due to receive it shortly.
Clearly, the Union’s financial resources need to be in line with our ambitions and allow the expectations enlargement has raised in many citizens to be met, whilst taking account of the concerns it has raised amongst others. The 2007-2013 financial package contains more than budgetary proposals. It is much more than a budget. It is a reference framework for a whole range of legislative proposals on financing the common agricultural policy, the Structural Funds, youth programmes, Trans-European networks and so on. The final shape of the reference framework approved will determine almost all of our legislative tasks.
The House will have a vital role to play in the adoption of a legislative package. Its role in the adoption of this package composed of over 50 proposals will be essential, as it will have to be adopted by the codecision or assent procedures. This will be another excellent opportunity to show Parliament is not simply a talking shop, but a body that actually takes decisions on specific issues with far-reaching consequences.
It will in fact be a unique opportunity for the House to promote its political priorities. The citizens of Europe cannot fail to take this on board if we contrive to translate our jargon into their everyday language.
To this end, I have suggested to the Conference of Presidents that a temporary
committee be set up to launch the debate, bringing together all the points of view from which it should be approached. The plenary is to decide on this today. The budget is the hub where all the spokes of the European wheel come together. All its details need careful consideration. That is why I believe that an
committee, possibly chaired by the President of Parliament, would send out a clear message on the importance we attach to this task.
It is essential to keep in mind that the financial perspective links in with other aspects of our policies the citizens are constantly hearing about, though I suspect they fail to grasp their full implications. I have in mind the Lisbon Strategy and the Stability Pact. One might well wonder what is supposed to be stabilised, and if it is prices, why only them.
By 2005, five years will have elapsed since the Union decided to set itself the aim of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth, with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Does the House not think all this is beginning to ring rather hollow, and that the significant political implications involved were not accompanied by the democratic debate needed to generate the spark required for growth?
The Union’s legitimacy springs from two sources. One is to be found in this House and flows from the citizens of Europe it represents. There is no reason why it should always be in line with the other, which flows from the Member States.
It has to be recognised that the Lisbon objectives are not being met, and that it seems unlikely that they will be between now and 2010. It is incumbent on Parliament to sound a note of concern regarding this vital objective for the future of the Union. It keeps being restated, like a mantra, whilst insufficient thought has probably been given to how best to attain it. Mr Kok will be invited to present the report he is charged with drawing up, concerning the shortcomings of the process and its prospects for the future. I believe debate in the House should centre on this report.
The objectives set out at Lisbon were extremely ambitious, and were established against the background of the economic prosperity enjoyed in 2000, shortly before the start of the crisis that was later intensified by terrorism. This must be admitted, as should the fact that the objectives were the subject of an intergovernmental process relying on the good will of the Member States for their implementation, through a coordination procedure in need of strengthening.
It is well known that throughout this period investment in technology has been low in comparison with the United States, and that the latter is still draining off our best brains. This probably calls for a focused debate. Human capital is not being developed as was decided at Lisbon.
The Lisbon Process goes hand in hand with the increased prominence given to environmental policies. Like the Maastricht criteria, Kyoto will put pressure on Europe. Our society will be forced to change its methods of production and consumption in a way that the citizens may not yet be sufficiently aware of. We are in favour of this, but will have to consider what it means and fulfil the ensuing obligations.
Turning to the proposed reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, I believe Parliament should make an effort of political imagination to make it work for the Lisbon Strategy, even though the House only has limited competence in this area. More generally, I feel Parliament should endeavour to bring more democratic debate to bear on the main guidelines of European economic policy.
The debate must take place in this House, with the involvement of national parliaments, so that they feel part of European decisions with consequences for budgetary debates in each country.
In this connection, I welcome the arrival of Mr Juncker, known as Mr Euro. It is certainly true that we did have a problem in Europe regarding the call for greater coordination of economic policy.
It will of course be necessary to study the role played by the European Union at world level. Special attention must be paid to transatlantic relations. I think the time has come for the House to demonstrate the maturity and responsibility of its parliamentary diplomacy by working more closely with the Commission and the Council on the international scene.
Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a role model for the rest of the world. The founding fathers had a vision of a united and reconciled continent. That so-called European dream has now come true. Unfortunately, it has lost its democratic magic in the process. It no longer has the power to stir wills and engender active consensus.
Allow me to set you a challenge, ladies and gentlemen. Dare one dream a different European dream, a dream of a more pluralistic Europe? Dare one dream of a Europe that differs from the one the founding fathers and the six founding Member States had in mind? Is it possible to fashion an ideal for a civilisation based on inclusiveness, which would help combat intolerance, the rejection of immigrants, ethnic conflict and religious intolerance?
This Parliament now brings together 25 parliamentary traditions. It expresses itself in 20 official and working languages, with the consequent expense and complexity. Even this large number of languages does not reflect the whole of Europe’s linguistic diversity, as I am often reminded.
I believe Parliament must engage in this endeavour. After all, most of the citizens it represents realise, at least intuitively, that none of their countries will be able to cope with globalisation on their own. No single country will be able to deal with environmental imbalances either, or with the emergence of so-called Continent States, terrorist threats, poverty or the resulting immigration.
Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for the citizens of Europe to make their voice heard. I want to work shoulder to shoulder with you, and hope we can succeed in mobilising the peoples of our continent and in breathing new life into its societies, so that this new European dream can come true.
Good luck and thank you very much for your attention.
I have had occasion to discharge the aforementioned responsibility during the last few days of the summer break. It has been my sad duty to issue a series of statements on behalf of the House, condemning unequivocally those terrorist attacks and actions inflicted on different parts of the world in a most cruel and savage manner.
The European Parliament is therefore at one with all democrats in expressing its sadness and solidarity with all of those families so unfairly cast into mourning by that brutal scourge that unfortunately no country is now free from."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples