Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-04-Speech-2-219"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060704.29.2-219"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen, you have spoken on the theme of innovation. At a time like this, when the Football World Cup is on, the image that comes to mind in connection with this topic is that of the Japanese: they played wonderfully up to the penalty area, but then they did not score a goal. Then there was the match between Brazil and Ghana, where the Ghanaians gave perhaps the best showing of any African team, but did not score any goals. It is much the same with we Europeans when it comes to innovation: we are brilliant at inventing things, and we are brilliant when it comes to reaching the penalty area, but we cannot convert this into goals.
I am therefore grateful to you, Commissioner, and to the rapporteur as well, for this report and for your statements. I would also like to give my compliments to the rapporteur, who had to deal with shifting majorities in the committee, which led to there being light and dark aspects to this report. I will start with the darker aspects.
Let us take for example the problem posed by patent law. The law clearly demands that the Member States end the dispute about languages so that we can have a European patent. This formulation is too weak: since then it has become a question of much more than languages. What is needed is to find a skilful, interesting and intelligent combination between the London Agreement and the patent litigation system, in other words a litigation system where we very clearly have to create a court that would be responsible for dealing with patent law.
Another important point is the reporting responsibilities that we demand for SMEs. We are asking the Commission to define a responsibility to report on how innovation potential is being measured. In doing so, however, we are quite clearly creating more bureaucracy. If we ask the Commission to demand these reports then it will do so from small and medium-sized enterprises, and they will thus be additionally burdened with bureaucracy. That is the wrong way to go about things.
The correct way to proceed, however, would be to adopt those points that will find a broad majority in this House: for example, if we were to promote business enterprises in Europe in such a way that failure in business were to become a genuine possibility, one that we could recognise and accept - as we can see in Anglo-Saxon countries. We should introduce measures to prevent the best researchers and innovators from leaving Europe, and we must create infrastructures so that European researchers can once again be at home in Europe, since there are indeed many researchers in the world who would gladly move back to Europe. We could also arrange additional subsidies for especially creative small and medium-sized enterprises.
Together with the Commission, this House has adopted the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, the CIP and I am grateful to everybody that this succeeded in first reading in which we make pre-seed money, that is, risk capital available for these particular initial stages.
Of course, there are standards too. I am glad that we have turned to the issue of standards, since through standards and better standardisation mechanisms we could reproduce the success story that we saw in the case of GSM – Commissioner Bangemann was the one who initiated this.
Lisbon is not dead, but I would prefer Liverpool, since the Liverpool Process would mean that we could be three-nil behind at half-time in the Champions League Final and yet still win. That is precisely where we now stand."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples