Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-18-Speech-3-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060118.2.3-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I extend my very warm greetings to all of you here this morning.
When it comes to reducing dependence on a single supplier, of diversifying, of stocking sufficient reserves and of making energy-supply networks secure – which will only be possible, incidentally, if we encourage long-term investments and permit long-term supply connections and contracts – we must not take the short-term view and focus on profits for the next quarter; long-term solutions are the only answer for Europe. It is also a matter of choices. I have always defended the right and responsibility of every country to choose its energy sources. We have chosen our way, which does not include nuclear technology and its peaceful use, and I shall uphold that decision. But I shall also campaign for every country’s right to preserve its freedom of choice.
I believe that we must take very great care not to slide into a one-sided approach. We in the European Union must work together to put safety standards first, and we must devote more attention than ever to renewable sources of energy and ensure that every option of importance to us and to our environment is fully explored.
This question of the security of energy supplies will be an important topic in the European spring summit. At this point I should also like to thank the British presidency of the Council for dealing comprehensively with this question and showing a good nose for imminent developments by giving it ample attention at Hampton Court. We shall cooperate closely with the Commission too in this matter.
Other topics are the fight against bird flu and the need for a firm stand against the Iranian nuclear modernisation programme. In these areas, more Europe and a united European front in the global arena are essential if we are to be able to give security guarantees to people in the world and especially in Europe.
The second very important topic which is preoccupying people is that of growth and employment. It is the key subject of the spring summit, for without jobs, without the prospect of finding work, it goes without saying that the people of Europe will become increasingly apprehensive. Many feel that Europe is doing too little for them in this area.
There are now 25 reform programmes on the table, which the Commission will assess. We have opted for a mix of specific verifiable voluntary commitments by the 25 Member States plus recommendations from the Commission with a view to moving into the practical phase of the initiative and achieving visible results. No politician can promise jobs today; to do so would be rash. But we can create favourable conditions. Everyone knows, and you know best of all, that with 1% of Europe’s gross national income, as in the present budget, or with 1.045% or 1.1%, it is not possible to create millions of jobs. We can, however, set an example, and we can verify the Member States’ fulfilment of their voluntary commitments. Above all, we can put some new items on the European agenda that have perhaps received less attention in the past.
One of these items, in my view, is the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises. Many such businesses used to complain that they received insufficient attention, that they did not have enough access to capital and to EU programmes. We have to realise that SMEs could be the only real job machine in the Union. SMEs are a sleeping giant that we must waken. SMEs need access to capital markets, research and development, and this is something the Commission must address in the SME programme it presents. They need access and consideration when it comes to the allocation of regional support from the structural funds. The Better Regulation programme must include specific measures to lower SMEs’ administrative costs. Cutting red tape is an important objective, particularly with regard to SMEs.
Another great source of strength that has not been adequately tapped is the partnership between the representative bodies of management and labour at the European level, the European social partners. From our Austrian experience, I can say that democracy and the market economy cannot work properly without free, strong and independent representatives of employers and employees. The Austrian model is certainly quite interesting. It is not as if agreements are reached without discussion: there are very frequent exchanges of opinion and sometimes even wrangles. It would be absurd to think that these things could be settled without arguments in a democracy. They often serve to pep up the political debate. Under our presidency, I should also like to invite the European social partners to join us in the pursuit of these goals – jobs, growth, energy security – and I have already had very good talks with the European Trade Union Confederation and the employers’ organisation UNICE.
It gives me great pleasure to be able to address the European Parliament. It is an honour to present, on behalf of the Republic of Austria, a brief summary of the programme for the six months of our presidency. The European Parliament is a very special institution, embodying as it does, in a unique way, the strength of the new Europe.
The Services Directive will be very important in this respect. I know that Parliament has been grappling tenaciously with this matter. After more than 1 000 amendments, you will have seen for yourselves how difficult it is to combine the opening of such a large sector of the market with the guarantees that the public expect of us. It goes without saying that the opening of markets must necessarily be accompanied by resolute action against social dumping and by efforts to protect the familiar public services that our local authorities have traditionally provided. We need that balance. Openness and protection are what is expected of us. I should like to have the social partners with us in this effort so that a proper balance can be struck.
The key to all of this, of course, is sufficient growth. There is no getting away from that. Above all, the spring summit must be devoted to the stimulation of growth. This requires not only research and infrastructure but enlargement too. Enlargement, if prudently and properly carried out, can be a growth strategy for Europe as well as for our industries in the old Member States. If we had 3% growth, coupled with at least 1% employment growth, the present unemployment figure of 19 million would be halved within five years. That is a hugely ambitious target, but if we also enhance our training systems and create greater flexibility, we can achieve it. This is surely where the real work has to be done. Faced with fierce competition from Asia and the United States and in the light of present demographic trends, we simply cannot afford to have part of our labour force inadequately trained or fail to maximise its employability.
A very important issue for the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament will, of course, be the negotiation of the Financial Perspective for the next seven years. I make no bones about this. We need and want your cooperation, because the creation of a seven-year Financial Perspective – a rare occurrence, since most of our budgeting covers a period of only one or two years – naturally brings security and predictability. I know there are many in the European Parliament who are not content with what the European Council only just managed to adopt in December after much toil and trouble, but I must also tell you plainly that those who want more research must look first and foremost at the national budgets. If we in the Member States were truly committed to implementing what was, after all, our own decision to devote 3% of our national budgets to research by 2010, that would produce not only EUR 200 billion a year for research but 50% more, in other words EUR 300 billion – far more than an allocation in the general budget, however ambitious it might be, could yield. I must be frank with you: we are reaching our limits with the Financial Perspective. If we go on having to, or choosing to, engage in the surgical removal of membership contributions from national budgets to finance the work of the Union, this will have been the last time we managed to put together a Financial Perspective.
I shall tell you straight – and some may not like to hear this – that Europe needs to become more self-funding. It is not right that we should have to extract all our resources from the national budgets, which are already under pressure. That is precisely what drags us into this lamentable tension between net contributors and net recipients, into a situation where everyone looks for winners and losers. The idea of a shift in the direction of self-financing may not be universally popular, but my duty as President of the Council is not to say popular things but rather to say what needs to be said. I believe we must focus attention on this point, and I know that the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, takes a very similar view. It is up to the Commission to put all these considerations on the table in the review of 2008/09. It is surely absurd that the profits of short-term financial speculation are completely exempt from taxation today. It is unacceptable that tax loopholes exist and that international air or sea travel is practically tax-free. Europe cannot tolerate this situation when there are important tasks that cannot be financed.
I therefore ask the Commission to include this issue in its review, and I also ask explicitly for the support of the European Parliament. If we want a strong Europe, we cannot coyly or timidly avoid this issue.
Here in the front row I see Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, and our esteemed High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Solana, who often have to go round cap in hand to raise money for vital peace missions, and all because we have not had the courage to discuss these matters sufficiently.
The new Europe you represent also needs new solidarity among the institutions. It makes no sense for the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to criticise each other. We are all in the same boat, and we have to row in the same direction. Not head-to-head confrontation but hand-in-hand cooperation – that is my principle and my motto for this presidency. We must listen when some of our citizens bemoan the misuse of EU funding or the squandering of resources within some programmes. There are cures for these ills in the form of independent scrutiny. We must listen when some people call for greater transparency in European decision-making – in the Council’s legislative activity, for example – or for funding awards to be publicised so that people know who has actually benefited. Why not? It is only right that such information should be published. This is European taxpayers’ money. We must work together on this.
We must also listen to people who say, ‘It is all very well to have a fairly efficient economy, but what has happened to the protection of ordinary people, to social cohesion and to care for the vulnerable?’
A few days ago, in his
at the European College of Parma, Jacques Delors made a statement that struck a chord with me. He said, ‘Finding a balance between the market and social policy means recognising social issues as a development factor and not as a by-product of the market economy’
‘Finding a balance between social values and the power of the market economy, and recognising social issues as a development factor and not as a by-product of the economy.’
This Parliament is the result of a historic election in 2004. For the first time, 25 nations held free elections simultaneously; they elected their assembly to represent them, the
the European people. The division of Europe was thus ended once and for all, although the process of reunifying Europe is still proceeding unabated.
I find that incredibly interesting. This is the very motto that ultimately sums up our European way of life and that we shall also take with us into the discussion on the future of Europe, with which I should like to conclude my remarks.
In the first half-year up to the June summit, it falls to us to conduct this discussion on the future of Europe. Since last June the Austrian presidency has had a mandate to engage in such a discussion together with the European Parliament here, with the Commission, which we also ask for fresh impetus, with the national parliaments and, of course, with the European public. Parliament, I know, will – today or tomorrow – adopt a good and well-balanced resolution on the basis of a report from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. I take that very seriously and will continue to do so during the Austrian presidency. It must not be an elitist debate; Europe concerns everyone. Many Europeans are longing for involvement, for a stake in the future of Europe. It is not only about a document. It is about far more than that: it is about the identity of Europe. What connects us? What internal forces actually hold us together? It is about a fair division of responsibilities: what can Europe do, and what must it do? Those who seek to resolve the major issues must have both hands free to tackle the task. Our hands will not be free unless we let go of other things. An earnest desire to resolve major issues presupposes readiness to relinquish responsibility for minor issues to other institutions. This is where the word ‘subsidiarity’ comes into play, a concept we are forever invoking in our soap-box rhetoric. We must bring it to life. To this end, we shall devote a special conference to it after Easter.
This discussion is also about the boundaries of Europe. Translated into concrete terms, this means the criteria that determine the absorption capacity of the Union. These boundaries must not be drawn by surveyors or geographers. They are a political matter. The political debate must focus on absorption capacity. It must also focus on the visibility of Europe in the world and within its own borders. I think it is wrong that we should only meet in Brussels or here in Strasbourg. Europe must be visible in its peripheral areas too, in other aspects of life. As a presidency, we see how interesting it is for people to discover, experience, grasp and sense that Europe is not afraid to reach out to its citizens. They must even be able to vent their anger on occasion so that this European model can work.
I am talking about a European way of life. I have never understood why, when the Americans talk proudly of their way of life, we Europeans never dare to talk openly, boldly and with pride about our own. Peace, security, democracy, human rights, solidarity and quality of life – these are things that are not to be taken for granted, nor are any of them achieved without a struggle.
In the light of these considerations, we shall present a draft route map with timetables and/or an interim report by the month of June. Controversies and divergent points of view are not only deemed acceptable in this discussion but positively welcomed. The worst thing would be for me to convene a discussion here to which nobody came or no one contributed. As Martin Buber once said, everyone is called to bring something in this world to completion. This applies especially to Europe. Europe is teamwork. The British held the presidency before us. We shall build on their work, and this year, we and the Finns have a well-coordinated joint operational programme on the basis of which we shall conduct our presidencies in tandem. In so doing, we intend to be reliable partners for you in the European Parliament and for you in the Commission. I look forward to our cooperation with great confidence, and I also hope that we can enthuse and inspire the people of Europe with our joint efforts. I wish you all the very best.
This Parliament is a marvellous illustration of the greatest strength of this new Europe, with its diversity of ideas and experiences, its history and also its life stories and its hopes. We know that the tone of Europe is not that of a solo instrument but that of an orchestra, and the same applies to this Parliament. Europe is not monochrome but colourful, as the logo of the Austrian presidency symbolises. And this strength, this diversity, the numerous identities of Europe, make our Union what it is. No country has lost out by acceding to the European Union. All of us have benefited. We have gained freedom, peace, security and paths to prosperity.
Yet if everything is so wonderful, you might well ask, why are so many of our citizens distinctly sceptical? We must be quite specific about this and analyse the situation honestly. The high points of the historic year of 2004 were followed by a particularly difficult phase. After three years of intensive negotiations on a new constitution, the outcome was rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands. Then came the strenuous tug-of-war over the Financial Perspective for the next seven years. There were terrorist attacks in some EU capitals, growing concerns among the population about further enlargements of the EU and a real lack of trust among the people of the EU in its institutions.
For this reason we have made it an aim of the Austrian presidency to tackle this particular problem. By the end of our presidency we want to see new growth in people’s trust in Europe, in trust between the Member States and indeed in trust between the European institutions. If we want to achieve that aim, we must first seek answers to the major questions that occupy people’s minds.
A friend of mine, the great Austrian quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger, drew my attention to a facet of physics of which I had never really been aware and which I certainly found extremely fascinating. He told me that the question is the important thing. In quantum physics, he said, this is far more elemental than in the general ideological context. The question elicits the truth, and the way in which the question is asked determines the quality of that truth. This is why we must begin by asking these questions. They must be straight questions, and we must also be aware of their unpleasant implications. We shall not have equally satisfactory answers to all of them, but we must also beware of rapid shortcuts. There is a need to listen, for Europe must be both useful and protective. The many real threats that exist are helping to focus our minds on these attributes.
On 1 January of this year, the day on which we took over the presidency, the New Year concert was held in Vienna, an event in which we try to radiate a little optimism as well as merriment. Just as the Latvian conductor, Maris Jansons, raised his baton, the Russians cut their gas deliveries, first by 30% and then, in the night of 1 to 2 January, by 50%. Martin Bartenstein, the Minister for Economics and Labour, who is responsible for energy affairs, then had the task of seeking solutions with our partners – the Ukrainians, the Russians and our European partners – and with Commissioner Piebalgs. This incident brought home to us that, in a matter that has hitherto fallen within the reserved powers of the Member States, major problems can now be resolved only at the European level. This is an area where we need more European involvement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Populus Europaeus"1
"lectio magistralis"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples