Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-21-Speech-2-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081021.7.2-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Daul, thank you for your support. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has always believed in a Europe that protects, and you yourself have been involved in the dialogue with our Russian neighbours. It was a visionary position: Russia has the energy, Europe has the technology. Russia is facing a serious demographic problem – it is losing around 700 000 people a year, over a territory twice the size of the United States of America. I do not see Russia as Europe’s implacable enemy; quite the contrary, I believe that it will be necessary, in future, to lay the foundations for a common economic area between Russia and the European Union, which would also be the best way of getting them to move towards the values of respect for human rights and democracy that we hold dear in Europe.
Mr Watson, I have the greatest of respect both for you and for your ideas, but even if you can read the small print, apparently without glasses, it seems that you have failed to do so today, because what does the text say? It refers explicitly to the conclusions of the European Councils of March 2007 and March 2008. And what do those two Council decisions say? They say that the climate change package will be adopted by codecision with the European Parliament. There is a continuum in the texts, Mr Watson.
What, then, was I trying to do? Maybe it was a mistake. I wanted to put an end to European Councils publishing 50-page communiqués that nobody reads, and I therefore proposed an eight-page communiqué. If you want to stick to a shorter communiqué, it is better not to follow the usual practice of summarising the conclusions of previous Councils in order to disguise the lack of new decisions by the current Council. I therefore think that codecision was covered by the references to those two previous Councils. You want me to confirm that, and I am quite happy to do so, but I can go still further, Mr Watson.
With regard to the energy and climate change package, I know, I reiterate and I believe that we will need a great deal of commitment from the European Parliament to push it through. There was just one thing I wanted to do in October, and that was to try to preserve the consensus within the European Council, because, as you will admit, if I had come to the European Parliament with a European Council decision that basically said that, in any event, we should not reach an agreement before December, you would, quite rightly, have told me ‘you have broken with what the Councils decided in 2007 and 2008’. Far from having called the energy and climate change package into question, I have fought in its favour, and far from having challenged codecision, I am insisting on it. Moreover, both I and President Barroso said as much to our colleagues in the European Council.
Mr Cohn-Bendit, you really are on top form. You have said ‘yes’ to me five times and ‘no’ just twice – I am used to a less favourable score. To be honest, your support regarding the Presidency’s determination and some of its actions is beneficial. I would also say to you, Mr Cohn-Bendit, that I think that a Commission Presidency, and Council Presidency, that are as committed as they are to defending the energy and climate change package deserve the support of the Greens. We do not agree on everything, but surely you, the Greens, are not going to fight a Commission Presidency and a Council Presidency that are absolutely committed to adopting the energy and climate change package. Surely we can at least walk part of the way together. You are an elected representative, I am an elected representative, and there is no shame in admitting that, if I need you, you also need me; that is probably more painful for you than for me, but that is the way it is. You also called on me to undertake some self-criticism. You are quite right, I certainly need to do so, and I am not the only one.
Finally, regarding the institutional putsch, I would make the same response as to Mr Watson. Mr Cohn-Bendit will not hold it against me. On the other hand, can this crisis, and the defence of the environment, be an opportunity for growth? I think you are absolutely right – you call it ‘green growth’ and I call it ‘sustainable growth’, but it is undeniable. I would also say to you that the environmental bonus on cars has proven this. France is one of the only places where the automobile sector is not shrinking. Why? Because the environmental bonus has helped it to sell more clean cars than dirty ones. Perhaps the Greens find the phrase ‘clean car’ shocking, but to us it is extraordinarily important. The Grenelle Environment, which I hope will be voted for unanimously in France, including by the Socialists, shows that France is strongly committed to this path. I really do think that it would be a mistake of historic proportions if Europe missed the boat on the energy and climate change package.
Mrs Muscardini, thank you for your support. You mentioned the immigration pact, and I am glad you did so, because nobody talks about trains that arrive on time, but it really is an amazing novelty for Europe that all 27 of us have managed to reach agreement on a pact. Of course, there are still some ambiguities, and of course we should have liked to go further, but still. Who could have predicted that all of you here would have the wisdom, with the States, to agree to a European immigration pact a few months before a European election? Believe me, it is the only way to prevent the extremists in each of our countries from dominating a subject that deserves intelligence, humanity and firmness. I am therefore grateful to you, Mrs Muscardini, for raising this issue.
Mr Wurtz, you said that we do not share the same diagnosis, and that is certainly true. Your speech, though, was, as always, very measured in its wording, but highly excessive at its heart. Things do not become less shocking, Mr Wurtz, if you say them softly: it is not so much the words that are important as what lies behind them. As sure as I am that capitalism needs to be reformed, I would say to you, Mr Wurtz, that capitalism has never caused as much social, democratic or environmental damage as the collectivist system that you have supported for so many years. Major ecological disasters, Mr Wurtz – you should listen to Mr Cohn-Bendit when he talks about self-criticism – major ecological disasters have been a feature not of the market economy but of the collectivist system. Social disasters, Mr Wurtz, have been features of a collectivist system, and the collectivist system sustained the Berlin Wall, millions of people have suffered physically from a loss of liberty. I therefore remain committed to the market economy, to free trade, and to the values of capitalism, but not to the betrayal of capitalism.
We can both look back over the 20th century, and you can be sure that the verdict will not favour the ideas that you have loyally followed for decades. You tell me to wake up, but, in all friendship, Mr Wurtz, I would be afraid to advise you not to think too hard about what happened during the 20th century, because sincere men like you would then see that they have been supporting systems that are far removed from the ideals of their youth.
I would add, Mr Daul, that the reason we wanted to support the banks was to protect savers. There were a number of strategies. Some countries – I will return to this later – wanted to protect and guarantee the banks’ products. I fought in favour of protecting and guaranteeing the banks themselves, so that we could then leave them to do their job, and your group’s support was essential for us.
Mr Farage, I did not have a mandate – that is undeniable – but, quite frankly, neither did the Russian troops when they entered Georgia.
You are one of those people who, for years, have denounced Europe for a lack of political will. I had a choice: I could ask for everybody’s opinions and take no action, or act and then check whether the others agreed. I prefer action. Finally, Mr Farage, a Europe that looks like you want it to. True, it is me, which is less good, but, at heart, it is still the Europe that you have been hoping and praying for. I would add that, democratically, I, along with Bernard Kouchner, ensured that the European Council validated the decisions that we had taken.
One final point: when the Irish – and I am not passing judgment, given how serious the crisis was – took the decision to guarantee all the products of their banks, excluding European banks and branches, it is a good thing that the Commission was there to pick up the pieces. What happened? In the space of 24 hours, the whole of the City found itself with no liquid assets, because, quite naturally, the liquid assets all left the City to go to the banks guaranteed by the Irish State, which had decided, off its own bat, to guarantee 200% of its GDP. You can see clearly that we need each other: if we had not coordinated our response, each country would have been launched into a spiral of ‘who can guarantee the most’, and people’s savings would have gone to the country that guaranteed the most, to the detriment of the others. You are such a staunch defender of the United Kingdom – well, it is Europe that made it possible to restore the City’s equilibrium, not the United Kingdom on its own.
Finally, Mr Gollnisch, you are the only one in the world who thinks that Europe has no use. There are two possibilities: either the world is wrong and you are right, or it is the other way round. I am afraid that, once again, it is the other way round.
I should like to finish by saying that your call to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon was exactly right, and, furthermore, it is hardly being aggressive to ask people to be consistent: you cannot say that you did not vote because you were afraid of losing a commissioner if, in refusing to vote, you are forcing the retention of a treaty that provides for a reduction in the size of the Commission. I respect everyone’s opinions, but I cannot agree with inconsistencies. You cannot both be among the strongest advocates of European enlargement and, at the same time, prevent Europe from establishing institutions for enlargement. We have seen how much it has cost Europe to enlarge without considering deepening; we must not make the same mistakes again.
Mr Schulz, you say I am talking like a European socialist. That may be, but you must admit that you are not really talking like a French socialist.
Quite frankly, in the socialist split, I would choose Mr Schulz, with no regrets and no remorse. I should, however, like to say one more thing – the whole point of Europe is that it forces us to make compromises. That is what Mr Schultz and I are now doing. Europe, its institutions and its policies will one day be adopted and applied by governments on the left and the right – that is the law of alternation. The European ideal cannot – and this is what makes it great – be reduced simply to a question of left and right.
It is fortunate, Mr Schulz, that men like you are able to recognise that others not on your own political side are not necessarily wrong just because they are not on your side. And I should also like to say to you, Mr Schulz, both to you and to your group, that, as President-in-Office of the Council, even though my party loyalty is to the PPE, I have very much appreciated the Socialist Group’s sense of responsibility when it has acted to go down certain paths. Reducing Europe simply to a debate between left and right, even if that debate exists, is a sin against the European compromise, against the European ideal. I therefore do not think you are renouncing your principles when you support the Presidency, any more than I am renouncing mine when I value the support of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.
I would go even further. Mr Schulz says that this is an historic task, and he is quite right. He says, as does Mr Daul, that the crisis may present an opportunity. You are absolutely right. And when you say ‘never again’, you are, once again, quite right. This is not a question of Christian Democrat or Social Democrat; it is a question of common sense. Who brought us to this point? On the other hand, where I would disagree is with the idea that, for the last 30 years, only right-wing governments have erred, and left-wing governments have always been right: that would be a rewriting of a painful history on both sides.
I would add, with regard to your comments concerning Mrs Merkel, that it is my understanding that they have elections in Germany, and I would therefore regard her words as an electoral platform. For my part, I have been blessed with Mrs Merkel’s solidarity and friendship, and I should like to pay tribute, once again, to her actions when she had the Presidency. The six-month Presidencies are part of a continuum, and I have benefited greatly from the efforts of my predecessors, particularly Mrs Merkel."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples