Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-25-Speech-2-402"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070925.34.2-402"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, thank you for not only giving me the floor but for the possibility of being at this interesting debate, because, when we reflect back to two years – or at least one and a half years – ago, we can see a total difference. I just want to react to some points and prepare for further cooperation, because we are not at the end. We are far from the definite establishment, but what we have already achieved in Council and Parliament is really something very significant.
Lastly, I wanted to mention the step towards a new culture of innovation. This is the right approach. The EIT is not so much about the place, one seat and the board, but a new and better culture for innovation in Europe. I think that is all I could, or wanted to, raise as points in my response, but thank you very much for a very positive and constructive climate here in this plenary. And thanks also to the rapporteur, Mr Paasilinna, once again, because I know it was not easy, and it is still not easy, and we are not at the end. But we can finalise this proposal. I am looking forward to it.
The Commission can accept Amendments 3, 12, 14, 18, 20, 23, 38, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72 and 73.
The Commission can accept Amendments 7, 16 and 28 in substance.
The Commission can accept, subject to redrafting, Amendments 2, 15, 17, 26, 39, 29, 30, 32, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 70 and 74.
The Commission reserves its position on amendment 21 on financial aspects pending an agreement on the funding.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31, 33, 34, 35, 47, 55, 58, 69, 71, 75, 77, 78 and 79.
First, a smaller point, which was raised by some colleagues from the Verts/ALE Group: according to Mr Hammerstein, climate change was dropped. We do not think so. In the proposal as it stands now, there is
a field of renewable energy and climate change. We do not want to insist, we do not want to put it very narrowly, because it is for the governing board definitively to decide and define. But the global challenges or highly demanding issues which we face now are one of the reasons why we speak about the EIT, because we need to pool resources and put together the forces we have in order to respond in a way.
Mr Smith, I visited and gave a speech at the Royal Society of Edinburgh on higher education, and the EIT was a very strong, interesting debate, and also inspirational mutually. I would not be discouraged by such messages from Edinburgh or the rectors I met, but of course the scheme is under preparation. Participation is voluntary and I think we should see it as a common responsibility but with the full freedom to take some positions.
On overall content, I would like to make four points. First of all, my thanks for the innovative mood in this Parliament because, as some of you have said, it is about innovations, and you have to start innovations by addressing the way we deal with innovations. It does not happen just through technology; it must first of all come as a new approach, a new way of communicating and putting together institutions, conditions for mobility, for recognition of qualifications and so on – and, of course, money, but that is not the decisive element. It is not the first element. That is the mentality, the approach, along, of course, with some reasonable funding.
Since spring 2005, we have gone from ideas to concept to proposal, and you have always been involved. It is not just the Commission and bureaucrats or whatever, it is a kind of common work, and that is why we should be aware that if we try to achieve something together we will be much more successful than without such a committed approach as we see here.
If you recall, two years ago in the media it was about Strasbourg or about something false, not about a real commitment from Europe to innovate. Now we have many serious candidates. Just this evening, Wrocław, Budapest, Munich and many more were mentioned – I do not want to forget about them. I got many more messages from different universities. That is fine, because it shows that now we at least believe the idea or want to offer something very serious. That is something Europe needs. We are not the ‘United States of Europe’. It is not Massachusetts. It is about the way we will put together better conditions and one concrete project towards a more innovative Europe. The EIT is not the absolute answer. It is one of the answers. Some people have said it is a flagship. I would say it is rather an icebreaker towards a more innovative Europe, to create better conditions for intellectual property –you know how long it takes and how weak we are – and better acceptance and recognition of diplomas and degrees etc. – many issues.
If the three cities mentioned are not the seat, then they should at least be Knowledge Innovation Communities. But I want to say that it was wrong at the beginning to say it is about money and the place. No, this will come as part of the proposal, but it is not the most important part. The answer will come within 12 months after we have agreed definitely on the establishment. I am really happy that there are very credible candidates now, but this will come when we agree on the legal base. The Council will try to choose the best out of the existing serious candidates.
Secondly, on money: last week we proposed the way in which we could come to the final point where we say not only how much money but also from which source we can finance the body until 2013. It is for basic operations, but it must, as many of you have said, mobilise much more money. It is not, I would say, decisive in terms of overall volume but as a credible contribution of the Union. We cannot expect anybody to give a blank cheque or promises if we do not bring something credible. But there are many concrete responses, intentions to invest, even from businesses and associations of businesses, but we have to make our proposal full.
On what Mr Buzek said on initiatives or joint technology initiatives, networks and platforms, this proposal is not competing. It is a proposal complementary to existing policies and initiatives and we can imagine that some existing cooperation models will step up the intensity of cooperation and join with some other partners, either from universities or business, and apply for a place under the EIT. So I think that from platforms, from initiatives, from networks, to get into an integrated partnership is a reasonable change of the way we innovate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Paasilinna report (A5-0293/2007 )"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples