Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-21-Speech-2-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081021.7.2-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I will be brief in view of the responses that have already been made.
Regarding Mr Rosati’s comments, as we have said, we must take account of the specific features of the energy situation in Poland, particularly with regard to coal, but it is clear that Poland will also have a responsibility to meet in the context of the preparations for the Poznán summit later in the year.
Finally, I am in complete agreement with what Mrs Doyle said. We must have a sense of responsibility. The financial crisis must not make us forget the response we need to make to the environmental crisis, and we must not hide behind the financial crisis.
With regard to what Mrs van den Burg called for, we do indeed need better institutional coordination at supervisor level. We need to distinguish between supervision and regulation, and, in terms of supervisors, we need better coordination at institutional level.
Like Mr Rübig, I am delighted at the agreement reached on the ‘third way’ energy proposal. It is, in my opinion, a thoroughly satisfactory compromise. That, I think, is what I can tell you. Equally, it is important to have tax incentives for energy saving: there I share his point of view.
Turning to what Mr Chichester said, it is true that we need structural solutions both for the financial crisis – that will be the challenge for the upcoming international summits – and for climate change, and we must, above all, have good regulation, not overregulation.
Finally, regarding Mr Czarnecki’s comments, it is clear that, in the face of certain industrial problems, we need to examine the adaptation options in some countries. This is the case for Poland and its naval dockyards; we are well aware of the issue.
Concerning what Mrs Isler Béguin said, lastly, we know that dealing with the problems in the Caucasus will be a long drawn-out process, and that Europe must also undertake preventive action. I agree with her that we must also be more forward-thinking regarding the status of these regions and Russia’s neighbours.
I should like to say to Mrs McAvan that we completely agree with her that the package should be ambitious, that we hope that, if possible, with Parliament’s assistance, we will be able to reach agreement by Christmas, and that we agree that it should not be just any agreement. We thus fully share your philosophy, and we hope that we will achieve a good balance between competitiveness and sustainable development.
Turning to Mrs Starkevičiūtė, what I wanted to say to her is that it is clear that the financial crisis has already had a major impact. We must, and I would say this to other speakers as well, stay on course, and that is why we are sticking with the energy and climate change package. On the subject of the EU’s budget, we will debate that together tomorrow, in the context of your first reading. I believe that the Commission’s proposal focuses on growth and sustainable development and that we must not move away from that, but we will return to that during tomorrow’s debate.
In relation to Mr Bowis’s comments, it is clear that we cannot put our ambitions regarding the energy and climate change package on hold in view of the financial crisis – that has already been emphasised. We must, though, take account of the variations in national sources of energy and of sectoral balances.
To Messrs Poignant and Savary I would say, first of all, that I recognise the great contribution made by the French socialists to the debates in the European Parliament and their great contribution to the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and, secondly, that I consider myself to be one of those who is most aware of how much Europe owes to Jacques Delors and François Mitterrand. I also think that the French Socialist Party sometimes needs to trumpet it more loudly, which would avoid certain ambiguities: ‘Europe is not a cause for the right or for the left; it is a European cause’. That is the lesson I have learned from Jacques Delors, and I know that Messrs Savary and Poignant share this viewpoint.
Concerning what Mrs Ek said, of course we are sincere with regard to the objectives and the timetable. We must act to ensure that the package is ready for the international challenges that Europe will need to face.
With regard to the comments from Mr Radwan and others on the financial crisis, clearly we are taking action to protect citizens, to protect savers, and to ensure that those responsible for the crisis in the various institutions have to pay for it. We have already said that the duty of care principle should apply here. The money that has been put in must be used to protect citizens and savers; it is not intended to be given as a gift to the parties who are primarily responsible for the financial crisis, be it in the United States or Europe, because they bet too heavily on speculation.
Mrs Berès is quite right to emphasise, as has been said, the fight against tax havens both within and outside the EU. This matter was not dealt with properly in the conclusions of the European Council but, as the President-in-Office of the Council said, there will be other European meetings – and ‘European’ is the right word. This is not a two, three or four-speed Europe: these are European meetings in which we can draft, together, international financial regulations – new international financial regulations – that will pave the way for better long-term funding of the economy. I endorse what has been said on the need for diversity in the reflection group set up by the Commission.
Mr Saryusz-Wolski is quite right, and makes a very important point: we have not sufficiently highlighted the Council’s conclusions, particularly with regard to energy security. What was done during the last European Council on energy security is an extremely important point. At the same time, we need to give practical shape to what was said concerning relations with producer and transit countries. We are quite clear on what messages we need to send to third countries, and we must obviously have that in mind in the context of dialogue with Russia. We also need to give shape to these conclusions by supporting projects to diversify sources of supply, such as those have been mentioned, in particular Nabucco. Of course, it was, in this way, a certain type of Europe of energy that came into being during the last European Council."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples