Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-25-Speech-3-451"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090325.32.3-451"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, that is true. Usually questions are easier than answers and usually there are more questions than answers, but I believe that together we can find more and better answers.
But I have to say that dialogue – especially following recent events in Biarritz and Lausanne – is real and very concrete between the European Commission and its partners, including FIFA. On this specific matter of ‘six plus five’ we will continue further. Even FIFA says that there is no reason for a hurried approach but rather a need for very concrete and credible answers. They do not want to get into formal disputes. We agreed to make room for more expertise and for more exchange. I think that is very beneficial.
On the Lisbon Treaty and the recognition of specificity, two special clauses are included in Article 149 of the Treaty on European Union regarding education, youth and sport. It also concerns the level of competence. This is only supportive action so the Union will not have any power to decide but only to support Member States in the promotion of the integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen. It could be helpful to organise a Sports Council as we have for education and youth, which will perhaps be the enlarged format. It could help to build the first EU sport policy and sport programme but will not mean a change of architecture or a general derogation. Theme-by-theme specificity, which is real and does not mean business as usual, must be defendable vis-à-vis the system or the European Court.
My opinion only reflects the Commission’s opinion. Our opinion is not the final one when it comes to explanation of European Union law. Especially in this area many issues are interlinked. We would like to promote an increased legal certainty, which is why we started the process. The white paper is there and the Pierre de Coubertin Action Plan helps to make it more readable and more concrete but it is a process. With the Treaty we can help even more but, without it, we will have to stay only at the level we have reached now.
I spoke about transfers under 18 years of age. With regard to this, FIFA made a very good decision, not only on transfers but on the promotion and protection of minors in sport – in football – and I think this is the right approach. So in some areas UEFA sets a good example, for instance concerning home-grown players, and in some areas FIFA sets a good example, for instance concerning the protection of minors. I think we can help both and it is important that this is also compatible within the world of football.
Last but not least – and I am sorry to have given a long answer – with regard to a forum on sport, which Mr Heaton-Harris mentioned, we have actually established this. In Biarritz we had a ministerial conference with major partners, but before that there was a forum with more than 200 stakeholders from very different areas of sport. It was a very positive, communicative and open forum and we want to continue with this. I believe that, under the Swedish, or especially under the Spanish, Presidency, we can hold another one to reflect on the progress we have made and to make a commitment to go further.
That is where I was when I started answering the questions – working together in a transparent, regular and credible manner. If that is the case, Europe is a leading area where sport is protected and promoted, and where we fight against negative phenomena such as doping, corruption, violence and racism around sport. I would like to invite you to share this approach because we do not have a better one. We do not want to impose anything again but rather to propose, protect and support. That is my answer.
This is all about cooperation, not only between Parliament and the Commission, but especially with the world of sport associations, federations, Member States and stakeholders. If they are responsible and responsive they come together and look for solutions which are acceptable and compatible with the law. Otherwise we adapt and change the law, whether at national or European level. So that is how we should proceed. I look forward to maintaining this approach.
I think much has changed since 2007. I do not want to repeat myself or to once again recommend reading the white paper. There is a shorter version and also a version with annexes. The first time we tried, we put together descriptions of all cases and all decisions related to sport, which made a kind of map showing how sport relates to European Community law or policies. Of course we are proposing further guidelines. We have proposed – and in Biarritz I introduced – physical activity guidelines, which could help to promote the volume, intensity and quality of physical education training in our societies and especially in schools. It should be adopted by the Council of Health Ministers. We do not have a Sports Ministers’ Council, but in fact the main reason is that it is related to public health.
We cannot have one large specific set of guidelines for everything. I have said that we can address specific concrete issues theme by theme rather than case by case. Next I hope we can deal with licensing – how to make a more transparent and more sustainable system and create a set of principles for our licensing policies. Of course UEFA or its partners should have the concrete responsibility for this, but we can help. It is in our interest to promote principles such as self-regulation, transparency and sustainability, and we can make several other important contributions to improvements in licensing.
We will support the Anti-Doping Conference. This offers a great opportunity to say much more on this, but I am against the establishment of another agency or a European WADA. I have also said publicly that there is NADAS, the European network of cooperation between national anti-doping agencies in our countries, whether they are public or private. Europe needs to be more active and more united. There are lessons to be learned from WADA and we should do so quickly. There are disputes. We have spoken to Ms Bozkurt about this code of conduct. Today I saw on television Sepp Blatter and John Fahey, the Chairman of WADA, discussing how anti-doping and football competitions could go hand in hand after the code of conduct has been adopted, and there is a problem.
So on anti-doping I think we need more internal cooperation in order to make Europe more credible. We have the Council of Europe, we have a convention on this. We have many reasons to be more coherent in our contribution to the world of anti-doping or a world which fights more efficiently against doping. You have said that dialogue is not easy in this area – I mean not just regarding anti-doping but sport issues in general. It is true that sometimes it is difficult, even at international and Europe level or between different disciplines or segments, but I can assure you that a culture of dialogue and openness and a readiness to engage in dialogue is growing.
I took part in the opening of the EOC office in Brussels, which is very close to Rond Point Schuman and to the Commission, Council and Parliament. This means the permanent presence of the European Olympic Committees and the IOC in the European institutions for the purpose of dialogue and cooperation. It says something about the importance of this and the mutual readiness to work in dialogue to find solutions.
With regard to international transfers, I am also in favour of the protection of youngsters and the promotion of training and education. In 2001 we adopted decisions or agreements on international transfers. The general age level is about 18 years, but in Europe there is a specific arrangement for the period between 16 and 18 years of age. Unless severe or very critical problems become evident, we do not need to change but rather to promote better and more training and to work with talent in Europe.
That is why, for example, we supported the home-grown player rule because this mainly promotes this sort of treatment. Of course it is not an absolute rule but it concerns specific arrangements. We give preference to, or promote, specificity under certain rules. We have said that we will come back to this decision in five years’ time to see what the real impact has been – not just the theory – of this new rule. ‘Six plus five’, as it stands now, is simply non-compatible with EU laws, as has been shown in a study. We have spoken to them and have read the papers but there is nothing new there. In substance we cannot say that we agree with the study."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples