Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-15-Speech-2-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090915.18.2-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"− Mr President, first of all let us address some issues of policy substance.
And, Mr Cohn-Bendit, I wish to tell you something. You have an obsession with me. I do not have an obsession with you. On the contrary, I almost feel sympathy towards you because you remind me of my youth ...
There is one political issue that is very important. I may be criticised for many things, and I am the first to admit that there are issues on which myself and the Commission may be criticised. However, we must fulfil our commitment regarding climate change: everyone acknowledges that we are the world’s leaders on this issue. I have received compliments, for the Commission, from President Obama, from the United Nations Secretary-General, and from the Nobel Prize winner, Mr Pachauri, who wrote me a touching letter. I will be the first to share this success for Europe with you, since the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has contributed to the agenda for green growth.
Make no mistake: I am in favour of green growth; I am not in favour of the decline of Europe. This is important. I am in favour of green growth, of viable growth, but I am not in favour of the deindustrialisation of Europe. I am not in favour of cutting our jobs in Europe. The fact is, it is the Commission that has done the most for climate change, and it is precisely the Commission that Mr Cohn-Bendit has made a scapegoat of since the beginning. Even before I have presented the guidelines and even before I have presented myself to your group, you have said ‘No’. You have even made T-shirts. They have not sold well, the ‘Stop Barroso’ T-shirts.
You speak of hallucinations, Mr Cohn-Bendit. Listen! A party put forward a candidate before the elections. I myself heard your proposals. You proposed a UK conservative, Mr Patten. You even, I believe, put the French Prime Minister forward as a candidate, which shows … but no, you did not, because I was thinking that that was yet another favour like the one you did Mr Sarkozy, by dividing the left in France.
Mr Cohn-Bendit, the truth is this: if we want to have a Europe that is closer to the citizens, we have to make our choices on the basis of policies. I should very much like the pro-European forces to support a pro-European programme. I have presented a very pro-European programme to you. It is up to you to vote for me. It is not I who decides who must support me. It is you who must vote. I have a pro-European programme, linked to the Treaty of Lisbon. This may not be the best news for everyone, but I believe in it. I am proposing to you now a new ambition for Europe. Indeed, the last five years have been the years of consolidation of the enlarged Europe. I make no apology for having the support of the 27 Heads of State or Government, who were democratically elected and who are on all political sides, of course, because I believe that my role was essentially to bring people together. This is the first time that we have had this enlarged Europe. I make no apology for having loyally worked alongside these Heads of State or Government. It goes without saying that a re-elected President of the Commission will have increased authority. I call on you to give strong support to a Commission that is in favour of more ambition, of more determined progress, and of a European project of solidarity and freedom. I am offering you loyal cooperation. Some people have ruled themselves out of this. That is a shame! I for my part am going to remain committed to my values, and even to the values that you at times defend.
The Commission does not and has never advocated the privatisation of public services. We believe public services are an important part of our European model of society.
What we believe is important is that those public services work in the framework of a strong single market in respect of Community rules. This is very important. If we want to have a real European Union, we have to have this internal market respected.
Let us be frank about it: sometimes some national politicians, when there is a problem, say it is the fault of Brussels and when they have success, say it is their merit. So please let us not embark on those accusations that it is because of Brussels that there is privatisation. These are national decisions. We have amongst our Member States some countries with some public services that they have decided to privatise but this is not an imposition of Brussels.
I think that the usual exercise of Brussels-bashing goes too far sometimes. Everyone should assume their responsibilities.
The second point is about posting of workers. The principles of the directive are indeed those that have been mentioned, namely by the Socialist Group: the respect for fundamental rights of workers; I said it very often. For us, these are sacred rights: the right to strike; the right of association.
Fundamental rights are something very important. I come from a country where there was a time when there were no civil rights or social rights, so I know what it means to have access to those social rights.
At the same time, we are committed to the freedom of circulation in Europe. Without that freedom of circulation, we are not going to have a Europe. So let us try to reconcile both principles in a way. Let us not give into interpretations of the European Court of Justice. That is why I proposed here a way forward inspired by many of your suggestions and I am ready to work in loyalty with all the Members of this Parliament to achieve it so that we have a stronger Europe, keeping our internal market, but respecting fully the social rights of our workers.
On regulation and deregulation, let me make the point very clear, and I ask you, Mr Cohn-Bendit, find a statement where I advocate deregulation. I have always said ‘better regulation’ or ‘smart regulation’. It is not my fault if in French it is translated as ‘deregulation’. Better legislation:
not
."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Mr Cohn-Bendit held up a blue card)"1
"mieux légiférer"1
"moins légiférer"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples