speaker_name
stringlengths 0
148
| speaker_role
stringclasses 7
values | speaker_party
stringclasses 9
values | intervention_language
stringclasses 22
values | original_language
stringclasses 27
values | date
timestamp[ms]date 2009-07-14 00:00:00
2023-09-14 00:00:00
| year
stringdate 2009-01-01 00:00:00
2023-01-01 00:00:00
| debate_title
stringlengths 5
666
| text
stringlengths 7
50.5k
| translated_text
stringlengths 9
36.6k
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clemente Mastella
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will immediately start by saying, without exaggeration, that for me, hospitality is a sacred value. Ultimately, it is solidarity between people which gives rise to the communities of a state, which are regulated by means of certain special obligations: rights and duties. Therefore as far as I am concerned, I am firmly opposed to anything that runs counter to this basic biblical principle. Clearly, it is the action of taking people in and also the ways in which we need to do this which combine to give rise to integration and all it entails. What can we do? Where should we locate these desperate people who arrive in the Member States and, at the same time, how should we eliminate that ensuing friction which we sometimes see as resentment, anger and rage, leading to rather worrying forms of antagonism? What should we do to ensure that safeguarding the right to asylum, a principle which has been cited in recent days too, does not, at the same time, leave the door open for fraudulent asylum seekers, which is the alibi certain people use: people who hide behind this universal right and who have nothing to do with the right to asylum, but everything to do with illegality and crime? Do we really think, Mr Billström, that all this responsibility can be shouldered by individual states? Until now, Europe has very probably acted with some uncertainty, but it seems to me that it can no longer put off establishing a united, serious approach to immigration. It cannot speak as it has been doing, with many discordant voices, and cannot force the most exposed and vulnerable individual frontline states into isolation. It cannot do so without a common position reached collectively, one which so far, we have not had, but whose essential principles are continually defended. It cannot, Mr President, fail to see its borders as a European issue instead of an issue for individual states. It cannot engage, as has already happened in this Chamber, in crude, theatrical performances in the argument over what the Italian Government or other governments are doing. For me, it is clearly unthinkable that the tragedies that have occurred off the coast of Lampedusa and in Ceuta and Melilla have nothing to do with Brussels, Berlin and Paris. Tension between the individual states and Europe stems from this and is causing problems, and this is also increasing Europe’s democratic deficit, which is only set to get worse in the absence of a coordinated policy on immigration; it is heightening the impression that the self-interests of states prevail over the greater good. It is intensifying, Mr President, the frustrating perception that Brussels and Strasbourg all too often deal with obscure issues and not those which concern the public. Ultimately, it is undermining Europe’s political identity. This is why I hope that the Swedish Presidency will begin to establish an agreement with the most vulnerable countries in order to think logically and bring about what has been lacking until now, namely a robust, balanced, sound and rigorous common policy on immigration.
| null |
David-Maria Sassoli
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Mr Barrot, Mr Billström, ladies and gentlemen, we called for this debate to draw the EU’s attention to the grave violations of fundamental human rights taking place in Italy. Since May, over 1 000 migrants have been picked up at sea by the Italian authorities and handed over to Libya in the course of informal and indiscriminate refoulements without identifying the people, giving them the right to appeal or access to asylum procedures, with the danger that they will be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment in Libya. As Commissioner Barrot confirmed when he asked Italy for details, we believe that these practices violate the fundamental principles which underpin Europe. This kind of action is compatible neither with the European Convention on Human Rights nor with Community law, particularly the Schengen Borders Code and the Repatriation Directive, nor with Italian law. Yesterday, the United Nations called on Italy to comply with international law and, also yesterday, 24 Somali and Eritrean refugees turned away by Italy lodged an appeal against Italy at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for violating the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, ladies and gentlemen, illegal immigration in Italy has become a criminal offence, an aggravating circumstance. The mere fact of being a migrant entails discrimination and inequality, and gives rise to harsher punishments for the same crime. The fact of being an illegal migrant, as were the families of our Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Greek and Italian communities, blocks access to fundamental rights and to the most basic care, including health services, for fear of being reported. This is happening in Italy, Mr President, and has also been denounced by legal and constitutional experts and secular and Catholic associations. What does the Commission intend to do to end these violations? Parliament has always supported the fight against illegal immigration, but only in compliance with fundamental rights. We would like to know, Mr President, whether the Commission intends to take action on Italian legislation and examine the Italy-Libya agreement. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we cannot allow certain governments to build new ones.
| null |
Niki Tzavela
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
el
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Commissioner, reality goes beyond anything said in this House. We see President Gaddafi entertaining this issue and the international media constantly reporting that EUR 1 billion is needed if it is to honour its obligations. We see Turkey – a state which wants to accede to the European Union – turning back Frontex aircraft on a daily basis and the European Union failing to react as it should. We see traffickers who move illegal immigrants giving them instructions on how to shoot themselves in the arm or leg in the event of arrest, so that the Member States are obliged to adopt and apply a different type of legislation to that which governs illegal immigration, because they are now injured persons. We see traffickers giving illegal immigrants instructions to destroy their papers before they enter a country, so that host countries such as Greece have no idea where to send them; we see immigrants claiming that they are seeking asylum, but have no papers so that we can establish the facts. Chaos prevails, Commissioner, and order needs to be restored at some point with a strict and firm stand on the part of the European Union on this issue.
| null |
Sylvie Guillaume
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, we hear it said repeatedly that the Member States acknowledge the need to establish common immigration management policies at European level and policies aimed at the social integration of immigrants. However, as we see every day, the reality is far removed from that. For example, within the context of the budgetary discussions, the Fund for the integration of migrants has seen a drastic reduction in its resources. As for the Member States, many of them continue unilaterally to impose strict legislation and regulations on movement to and on their territory, to restrict access to their labour markets, social systems and educational systems, and to make family reunification difficult. In the same way, European policy on the fight against illegal immigration and on external border control ultimately amounts to passing the responsibility for border control on to our neighbours, in defiance of human rights. We have seen this happen between Italy and Libya. This tendency to externalise issues ultimately allows Europe to free itself from its responsibilities. This is unacceptable. The additional resources given to Frontex will never be a substitute for the necessary solidarity that must unite the Member States, enabling them to act together in accommodating people who need international protection, and in accommodating a foreign labour force that is needed to meet the democratic challenges of the future. What provisions are you making to ensure real solidarity and real solutions to the suffering of migrants?
| null |
Rita Borsellino
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Mr Barrot, Mr Billström, ladies and gentlemen, in recent days, when setting out the European asylum plan, you yourself, Mr Barrot, talked of steadfastness in the fight against illegal immigration and of humanity when receiving the victims of persecution. Translated into legal terms, this means ensuring protection and the right to asylum for those fleeing starvation, war and persecution, and preventing their expulsion to countries where their lives are in danger or they risk inhumane treatment. This is basically the opposite of what the Italian Government is doing, as demonstrated by the latest worrying refoulement of 75 immigrants from Eritrea and Somalia to Libya, which happened without at least checking whether there were any potential asylum seekers, as required by international law and as denounced yesterday by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. An agreement between Italy and Libya cannot transform that stretch of the sea into a free zone where human rights are violated. I therefore call on the Commission to take action as soon as possible to ensure that the rules of international law are restored and complied with. Furthermore, I would like to know what progress has been made in the negotiations on the bilateral agreement between the EU and Libya, already underway for a number of years. When do you expect to conclude it? Can the Council and the Commission confirm that this agreement would prevail over the Italy-Libya one? Can you explain to Parliament the key points relating to tackling illegal immigration and guaranteeing the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement?
| null |
Anna Maria Corazza Bildt
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it is a great joy for me to take the floor for the first time in this Plenary to commend Minister Tobias Billström for his deep understanding – and, as an Italian national originally, I am in a position to say that – of the grave situation facing the Mediterranean people and countries. I would like to welcome his efforts to reach a consensus for a common European migration policy, which is very much needed. I would also like to welcome his initiative for the asylum support officer, which is a very practical and concrete way to support Member States who feel burdened and to start cooperation among Member States. I would like to ask Minister Billström if, other than the measures he has already talked about, he could maybe elaborate further, from a long-term point of view, about what measures we can take to support the Mediterranean countries and people, with his approach, which balances humanity, solidarity and firmness against any form of illegality.
| null |
Georgios Papastamkos
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
el
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, without doubt, we need a common immigration policy and we need to reinforce our cooperation with third countries and make it more cohesive and effective. Within this cooperation, as the debate has illustrated, Libya and Turkey have prime position. Turkey’s conduct is provocative. They are repeatedly obstructive and I want to make that known in the House and to send Mr Barrot the message that they are obstructing Frontex helicopters and aircraft when they are on European missions and on European duties. The New Democracy MEPs have exercised parliamentary scrutiny. Mr Barrot, you will receive detailed notice of these cases of provocation and of Turkey's provocative conduct. As for readmission and relocation, we must reinforce Frontex still further and organise joint return flights. Mr Barrot, Mr President, please hurry up and visit Turkey and Libya. The problem is very acute. Do not leave it until the end of the year. Today or tomorrow ... (The President cut off the speaker)
| null |
Barbara Lochbihler
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, border officials of European states are forbidden to turn away potential asylum seekers who arrive by sea or to escort them away, prevent them from travelling further or return them to countries which do not form part of the EU. This is laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights. Today, we have once again heard numerous examples of how Frontex does not comply with these rules in practice. For this reason, we need controls in this area. We need these controls as Members of the European Parliament, because it is our responsibility to ensure that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights are observed. My question to you is as follows: To what extent are we able to monitor whether border officials in international waters are complying with these legal requirements relating to human rights? For years we have been aware that Frontex has violated human rights in individual cases. However, in all its activities, it is also seriously undermining the credibility of the EU when it comes to the protection of human rights.
| null |
Alf Svensson
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, thank you Mr Billström. I wonder if, at times, we do not become a little too fixated on the words ‘illegal immigration’. After all, it cannot be illegal to flee for your life, since human rights and freedoms apply to everyone, wherever they live. I would like to emphasise that it is also vital to find out what conditions are like in the countries that people are fleeing from. Perhaps the EU could be more active and do more in those countries so that people do not need to flee only to subsequently be labelled illegal immigrants. Perhaps, as I said before, we are too fixated on the word ‘illegal’. As I say, it is perfectly legal to stand up for human rights and freedoms both inside and outside the EU.
| null |
Antonio Cancian
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning it was almost like being at the Italian Parliament with you in the chair. In any case, I believe that immigration means security and respect for human rights. Unfortunately though, globalisation and the enlargement of the European Union to 27 countries have happened in too much of a rush without taking the appropriate steps to safeguard security and respect for human rights. I listened to the Commission: the strategy is sound and the future action is excellent, but we are forgetting that the issue is pressing and dramatic and that we have an emergency situation. What was said this morning holds true in a normal situation, but today – especially in Italy – the situation is not normal. I therefore urge the Commission to pay more attention to the tactics than to the strategy and to view the problem as entirely European. Thank you.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The president in the chair right now is certainly Italian, but the debate was far from being purely Italian. Fortunately it was, shall we say, wide-ranging and enjoyed contributions from various quarters and different viewpoints from within the European Union.
| null |
Tobias Billström
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank you all for a very interesting debate. A lot of valuable opinions have been expressed here today. I would like to mention Mr Busuttil’s views on greater cooperation with Libya. I hope to be able to visit Libya along with Commissioner Barrot in order to build relations with this country, and the work with Turkey will also continue. I also agree with Mr Aguilar, Chairman of the Committee on Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, that one way to tackle illegal immigration is to open the way for legal immigration. That would relieve the pressure on the asylum system, for example. The criminal networks that exploit people’s desperation must be tackled. The Swedish Presidency will organise a special conference in Brussels on this issue and the fight against human trafficking. It is the absolute priority of the Swedish Presidency to try to reach agreement regarding the European Asylum Support Office and to improve practical cooperation. Naturally, we are hoping for the support of the European Parliament in this matter. I would like to say to Mrs Alfano that it is important that the legal acts adopted by the European Council are complied with and that all Member States implement them as decided. It is also important to involve the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in our work in order to achieve the high quality that we are aiming for. I must also say that I agree with Mr Kirkhope’s assessment of the importance of distinguishing between asylum and the immigration of workers. This reasoning leads us, naturally, to the conclusion that the EU needs a common European asylum system and also better opportunities for the legal immigration of workers based on national needs, legal certainty and protection against wage dumping and social exploitation. If we have this we will not need the policies of Messrs Meyer, Batten or Bontes. We need a sensible and well thought-out migration policy to improve the demographic structure of the EU and to strengthen the economy and people’s welfare. Mrs Corazza Bildt and Mr Svensson addressed the issue of how we should deal with the mortalities in the Mediterranean. There is no single solution to the migration problem. It requires a package of various initiatives within different areas. Increased cooperation with the countries of origin and transit is particularly important. For example, development cooperation with these countries needs to increase in order to create stability, security and sustainability. The countries of origin and transit and the Member States must also improve their sea rescue. The division of responsibility between the countries with regard to sea rescue efforts also needs to be clarified. We also need to arrive at a common interpretation of the sea rescue regulations in terms of the right to international protection, on the one hand, and the international law of the sea, on the other. Finally, on behalf of myself and the Presidency, I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to come here to the European Parliament to present our views. It is important to emphasise that our strategy must be based on multiple elements and initiatives. I think that this debate has clearly shown that. Thank you very much. (Applause)
| null |
Jacques Barrot
|
EU Commission Vice-President
|
N/A
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, this debate has demonstrated, if demonstration were needed, the scale of these migration problems. I would point out that our approach must be balanced between the rejection of illegal immigration, which, I might add, is often attributable to smugglers and traffickers; the desire, in respect of this fight against illegal immigration, to promote a certain kind of legal migration, a decision which rests with the Member States; and also the desire to preserve, in any case, the duty of asylum. First of all, I should like to respond very briefly on the Frontex issue, and to point out that we are preparing a proposal amending the regulation on Frontex and its working methods. I have certainly noted the desire for greater transparency that has been expressed. On the other hand, we are also going to try to clarify the rules that should help to ensure that Community law and international law are applied consistently within the context of Frontex operations. With regard to the Italian problems, I must say that, in July, we sent a letter to the Italian authorities requesting any useful information on the return of the boats intercepted in international waters. We have just received a reply from the Italian authorities, which our services are now examining in great detail. I would add that Community legislation demands that the Member States conduct border control operations in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement. This principle means that a State must refrain from returning people to a territory in which they could run the risk of being subjected to torture, punishments, or inhumane or degrading treatment. In the case of asylum seekers and refugees, return cannot take place where their lives and freedom may be threatened on the grounds of their race, religion or nationality. In short, we are ensuring that this duty of protection is upheld. Finally, I should like to reiterate our desire, with Mr Billström, to engage with Libya, on the one hand, and with Turkey, on the other, in a real dialogue that will allow us to get to the bottom of matters, to be able to cooperate on border control in order to prevent illegal migration, but also to see how, with the support of the High Commissioner for Refugees, we can try to initiate procedures in these Mediterranean countries that will mean that genuine asylum seekers do not have to resort to smugglers or traffickers in order to reach European shores and will see their asylum applications processed in those countries. This, then, is a major dialogue that is going to take up this last quarter. I would like to thank the Swedish Presidency for its willingness to cooperate so effectively. To conclude, I should like to reiterate that we need a European strategy on migratory movements. We feel that the Member States really must show more of this solidarity with each other. The Member States are affected by the same problems. It must be said that illegal immigration ultimately affects all the Member States, not just those on the outer borders. I consider it truly important to establish this solidarity. We are proposing that this be done on a voluntary basis, but this voluntary basis will, without doubt, have to be formalised as a genuine response to the problems. There you have it; I am not going to prolong these answers. I have taken many notes during the various speeches that have been made. I should like to finish with a somewhat urgent appeal to the European Parliament to help us, in particular, regarding this strategy, this European asylum policy. I would point out – since the matter has been raised – that we wished to improve the application of the Dublin agreement by allowing some flexibility. We have sought permission from the Council and Parliament to set up this support office by the end of the year, and we are also going to prepare for the harmonisation of the instruction procedures. All of this makes for a real European asylum policy that I feel is entirely consistent with the values on which, in my view, there is consensus in Europe. We believe in these values. They must be translated into action. I am grateful, in any case, to the European Parliament for helping us in this difficult task. (Applause)
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 149)
| null |
Elisabetta Gardini
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Illegal immigration is a veritable scourge which has afflicted mainly the southern countries of the EU, particularly Italy, Malta and Spain, for several years. It is well known that among all the EU Member States, it is the Italian Government which receives the highest number of illegal immigrants, desperate people principally from Africa, in search of a better future. Contrary to the claims made by exponents of the Italian left who, for the umpteenth time, have made improper use of the European Parliament to launch unjustified attacks against the Italian Government led by Mr Berlusconi, the preliminary reception centres provide medical care, board and lodging as well as legal aid for as long as is it takes to determine whether an illegal immigrant may remain in Italy or whether, in accordance with international agreements, he or she must be repatriated. We urgently need to adopt effective Community measures on immigration and asylum. We cannot seriously imagine that Italy is able to shoulder all the burdens associated with a phenomenon set to increase exponentially. Some Members have voiced the idea of establishing ‘illegal immigrant quotas’. This is a case of good intentions sadly not backed by concrete political will: only recently, the Swedish Presidency highlighted the difficulty of gaining acceptance for these quotas.
| null |
Louis Grech
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
I welcome this debate, which brings attention to the fragmented and inconsistent EU policies on border control, immigration and asylum seekers. I am glad to hear that the Council and Commission recognise these as priority issues, but so far we have seen only half-measures to address them and no meaningful results. It seems that there is a lack of political will on an EU level to provide adequate resources to tackle these issues in a fair manner. For the moment, Member States with external borders are carrying most of the burden and their situation is worsening by the day due to a lack of resources and capacity. Some good proposals have been discussed lately, such as the revision of the FRONTEX mandate, an EU-wide refugee resettlement scheme and the creation of a European asylum support office. I urge the Commission to act quickly on their implementation. We need more solutions based on a burden-sharing approach as it is the only adequate response. The Commission and Council must show more resolve in providing the necessary funding for FRONTEX. To protect our borders effectively, it should have its own equipment and assets, and operate on a year round basis.
| null |
Marian-Jean Marinescu
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
ro
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The future extension of the Schengen area to include Romania will increase the importance of ensuring the security of Romania’s external borders and, therefore, the role of the FRONTEX agency in Romania. The FRONTEX agency must play an ever-increasing role in the process of improving the monitoring and control of Romania’s external borders, representing more than 2 000 km of the EU’s external frontier, in other words, the Schengen area’s future external border. During the last year, FRONTEX has signed cooperation agreements with Russia and the countries in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as with Ukraine and Moldova. This is a step forward towards managing all borders. One welcome measure, at this point, would be for the European Commission to examine the ways in which FRONTEX could utilise this legal basis. The possibility of signing cooperation agreements with other third countries is another matter which the Commission must explore. Obtaining as many agreements of this kind as possible will facilitate the effective coordination of joint operations and, consequently, contribute to the respect for human rights and civil liberties and to the fight against cross-border crime.
| null |
Tiziano Motti
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
I agree with Mr Buzek’s statement that immigration has always benefited Europe, insofar as this relates to immigration that is regulated, integrated and respects the institutions and laws of the country of destination. When social renewal and labour turnover are needed, when cultural exchange enriches peoples, then immigration is a precious resource. Our Judeo-Christian roots provide us with the notion of charity and hospitality towards those who are suffering. However, when illegal immigration results in emergency situations, hardship, crime and insecurity, a tangible strategy for integration at levels that countries can sustain in demographic terms becomes necessary. We are fooling ourselves if we believe that the problem is limited to the countries bordering the Mediterranean: the free movement of citizens in the EU can only encourage the free movement of many illegal immigrants who have turned to crime. Every European state has a moral and direct interest since this is related to the issue of crime and the security of the half a billion citizens who have given us a mandate to protect them with urgent, tangible actions, both with regard to existing problems and those which are likely to develop rapidly. The rights of citizens cannot be traded for the general indifference of the Member States or for Solonic warnings by the European Commission.
| null |
David Casa
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
As a result of judgments by the Court of Justice in the Open Skies cases, the Commission allowed for the replacement of bilateral agreements that had been entered into between some Member States and third countries with Community agreements. The Commission has therefore negotiated an agreement that will replace the bilateral agreements between Mongolia and certain EU Member States.
| null |
Nuno Teixeira
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
This proposal is aimed at replacing certain provisions of bilateral air service agreements concluded in the past by EU Member States and the Government of Mongolia, and deals with aspects that I consider crucial, including technical issues, taxation of fuel, and pricing. I particularly welcome the importance granted to compliance with Community competition law, since some provisions in earlier bilateral agreements were clearly anti-competitive. I therefore endorse Mr Simpson’s report since it follows these general guidelines.
| null |
David Casa
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
When Romania and Bulgaria entered the EU, it was specified in their act of accession that a protocol would have to be drawn up amending the Agreement on Maritime Transport between the EU and its Member States and China. This vote is in favour of the conclusion of this protocol.
| null |
Luís Paulo Alves
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted in favour of the report on mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund in favour of France because I believe this fund helps countries to respond effectively and flexibly to situations created by natural disasters, in this case the storm last January which affected south-western France, causing severe damage. This financial instrument of solidarity is mobilised in cases where the damage caused by a disaster is so severe that national resources are insufficient to respond effectively to the crisis, the aim being to stimulate economic recovery and meet the needs of the Member State affected.
| null |
Jean-Pierre Audy
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted in favour of the report by my esteemed German colleague and friend, Mr Böge, calling on the European Parliament to approve the proposal for a decision on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide approximately EUR 109 million in commitment and payment appropriations in 2009 to help France, the victim of a disaster caused by storm Klaus which, in January 2009, hit 31 departments in the south-west of the country, causing an estimated EUR 4 billion or so of serious damage. I will take advantage of this speech to congratulate Mr Lamassoure, the chairman of our Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, on the speed with which he, together with the European Commission’s services, has dealt with this matter.
| null |
David Casa
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
In January 2009, a storm took place in south-west France causing severe damage and enabling France to apply for funds from the European Union Solidarity Fund. I voted in favour of the mobilisation of these funds.
| null |
Diogo Feio
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
In my view, solidarity among Member States in the European Union and, in particular, European support for countries affected by disasters, are a clear sign that the EU is no longer just a free trade area. By adopting special aid instruments like the European Union Solidarity Fund, the Community that we seek to make ‘united in diversity’ demonstrates its ability to remain united in adversity, even in situations that place high demands on human and material resources. That is something I sincerely welcome. I hope the Solidarity Fund is not used very often, as it will mean that Europe is not suffering from many serious emergencies, but I also hope that its structure and availability are increasingly improved and frequently reassessed so that it can meet any real demands swiftly and without red tape. I must mention the fires that have ravaged my country, particularly in 2003, and I acknowledge how important and useful mechanisms like this fund have been. I believe the particularly serious times that France went through in January this year justify mobilisation of the fund. The overwhelmingly positive vote in the Committee on Budgets confirms that this is a good measure.
| null |
Véronique Mathieu
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I welcome the intervention of the European Union Solidarity Fund – from which France will benefit – to help right the damage caused by the storm of January 2009, which hit the European and French forestry sector hard. The amounts granted should be available by October 2009; in other words, nine months after the storm. This intervention is quicker than the average time taken for the Fund to intervene, which is around one year from the time of the disaster to the payment of aid. While it is right to welcome this progress, it is worth continuing to call for the fund to be made available more quickly. The current procedure for managing the Solidarity Fund makes this difficult. Nonetheless, a revised proposal for a regulation was tabled by the European Commission and supported by a large majority of Parliament in May 2006. I regret that the Council has still not taken up this matter and I would encourage it now to consider, as soon as possible, the possibility of bringing the European Union Solidarity Fund into operation more quickly.
| null |
Jean-Pierre Audy
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted in favour of the report by my esteemed German colleague and friend, Mr Böge, calling on the European Parliament to approve the proposal for a decision on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to provide EUR 4.1 million in commitment and payment appropriations to help the Spanish and Portuguese textile sectors (Catalonia and Norte-Centro regions). The aim is to provide aid for the workers affected by the consequences of the significant changes in the structure of international trade and to help them re-enter the labour market. I share my colleagues’ view about speeding up mobilisation of this fund and about assessing its complementarity with other existing instruments such as the Social Fund.
| null |
Edite Estrela
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted in favour of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to provide additional support to Portuguese workers affected by redundancies in the textile sector and who suffer the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. The mobilisation of EUR 832 800 from the fund is aimed at reintegrating workers into the labour market by means of personal employment plans, drawn up together with the workers, which include personal skill development and strategies for entering the labour market.
| null |
Diogo Feio
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
EU support, particularly from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, is fundamental in helping those who have lost their jobs due to the relocations that have occurred in a globalised market. In recent years, especially as a result of the world economic crisis, Portugal has been feeling the effects of the problem of how to reabsorb and reintegrate the unemployed into the labour market. Countless firms have relocated to take advantage of the lower labour costs found in China and India, for example, with dire consequences for the entire national economy. The approval of EGF money to help these workers is vital not only for improving their personal and family situations, but also for the whole national economy, because the aim of these exceptional measures in the longer term is to help these workers to find and keep a new job.
| null |
José Manuel Fernandes
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted in favour because I believe this support is important for Portuguese workers. I feel, however, that Portugal’s application was not ambitious enough. The Portuguese Government asked the EGF for EUR 833 for each worker made redundant in the textile sector, whereas Spain applied for EUR 3 006 per worker in the same sector. I also find it somewhat surprising that, in the midst of an economic crisis with rising unemployment, in which the effects of globalisation can be felt, the EGF has received and accepted so few applications from the Member States. In fact, the EGF has EUR 500 million available for all the Member States this year, and to date only about EUR 60 million has been utilised.
| null |
Ilda Figueiredo
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
We voted in favour of this report, since the European Parliament is giving the green light for Portugal to receive EUR 832 800 to help workers made redundant in the textile industry in Portugal’s Norte and Centro regions. This is a tiny sum, however, and it is merely a palliative measure, given the severe unemployment experienced in Portugal today, particularly in those regions. As we all know, Portugal applied to the European Commission for this money in January this year, and it relates to 1 588 redundancies reported between February and November 2008 in 49 textile companies in the northern and central regions of the country. Approval has also been given, however, for EUR 3 306 750 to support 1 720 workers dismissed from 30 textile companies in Cataluña, Spain. What was really needed, though, was a policy to support production, particularly in the textile sector, to prevent further company closures and further redundancies.
| null |
Patrick Le Hyaric
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
While I agree with the basic principle, I believe that the seriousness of the crisis calls for provisions on an altogether different scale, not least to allow SMEs access to credit and to have credit that is conducive to employment, territorial development and the development of human capabilities.
| null |
Andreas Mölzer
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
The motions submitted by Spain and Portugal to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) once again make clear the consequences of globalisation. In the countries of south-east Asia and, in particular, in the special economic zones, where people are exploited and employed without minimum social standards, textiles are being produced at dumping prices and then sold on the European market. European companies, which respect the social rights of employees that have been established and acquired over decades, are left at a disadvantage because of the higher costs that they incur as a result. We must stop this development from going any further immediately. A ban must be imposed as soon as possible on the import of products into the EU which are not produced under specific minimum social standards. Until this has been achieved, we can only work to reduce the damage caused by globalisation in the relevant countries. Therefore, I have voted without reservations in favour of releasing aid from the fund.
| null |
Nuno Teixeira
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
In recognising the adverse impact of globalisation, which is all too evident in the industrial regions of Europe, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is grounded in the solidarity of the European project and brings it closer to the people by providing assistance for those workers who are worst affected by these changes. Portugal’s Norte and Centro regions, where the economy was based on traditional sectors such as the textile industry, have been modernising since the early 1990s in an attempt to adapt to rapidly increasing competition. The textile industry employs roughly 15% of the labour force in these areas of the country, and almost 98% of the unemployment in the sector across the country is concentrated in these two regions. The worsening economic climate that has harmed these regions, along with others – particularly the outermost regions such as Madeira, where tourism is very important – has had worrying consequences in terms of social cohesion, above all, because of the rise in unemployment. I therefore support the mobilisation of EUR 832 800 from the EGF in the wake of the 1 588 redundancies in the textile industry in Portugal’s Norte and Centro regions. This sum must be used wisely for retraining these workers and reincorporating them quickly and sustainably into the labour market.
| null |
David Casa
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
This concerns the revision of Traditional Own Resources, VAT and GNI and provides for adjustments with reference to economic forecasts. The proposal is extremely technical, so I shall simply declare that my vote has been favourable to this proposal.
| null |
David Casa
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
During January 2009, the south-west of France was hit by a storm which caused severe damage and therefore allows France access to funds in the EUSF. I am in favour of following the point of view of the rapporteur in accepting the proposed Draft amending budget No 7/2009.
| null |
Patrick Le Hyaric
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I consider it unacceptable to mix together in the same vote the appropriations to promote the bluetongue vaccination and the Europol and Eurojust appropriations. I am in favour of the appropriations to eradicate bluetongue disease, but am against the Europol and Eurojust appropriations.
| null |
Andreas Mölzer
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
In January 2009, France was hit by a severe storm. Storm Klaus caused devastation, in particular to the country’s infrastructure. The objective of the Solidarity Fund is to cover part of the cost of damage which has to be paid for out of the public purse. This case meets all the requirements. For this reason, and particularly for reasons of cross-border solidarity with the French citizens who were and, in some cases, still are affected by storm Klaus, I have voted in favour of the Draft amending budget.
| null |
Robert Rochefort
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I welcome the adoption today of the report by our fellow Member, Mrs Haug, to which I gave my full support. With this vote, we are allowing the European Union Solidarity Fund to be mobilised for the second time this year. Indeed, having come to the aid of Romania, the European Union is now showing its solidarity with the French population which, in January 2009, felt the full force of the devastating and very violent storm Klaus, which was described as a ‘major natural disaster’ and, as such, was eligible for inclusion in the main scope of this Fund. In total, more than EUR 120 million have been made available in this way. As you know, this aid is sorely needed for the departments in the south-west of my country, which have suffered considerable damage. I would like to thank my fellow Members for voting in favour of this report. It will, of course, be necessary now to ensure that the French Government involves the local authorities fairly in the process and that these authorities are not cheated as regards the way in which this money is used. Indeed, it would be unacceptable if only the private sector were to benefit from it.
| null |
John Stuart Agnew, John Bufton and David Campbell Bannerman
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
We acknowledge the very real need for a bluetongue vaccine, particularly for beef and sheep farmers in the South and East of England who, by wholesale vaccination on their own farms, have created a firewall against bluetongue that their fellow farmers in the North and West have benefited from. In order to vote for EU funding for this vaccine we are obliged (in the same vote) to vote for increased funding for Eurojust and Europol. These are two agencies that operate outside the boundaries acceptable to British law, severely increasing the power of the state at the expense of the liberty of the individual. It is contemptible that the EU attempts to bury such provisions in these types of reports, and then requires MEPs to vote on them as a whole and not individual parts. Thus, we could not in good conscience support such a report, which explains our voting abstention on the subject.
| null |
David Casa
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
This report concerned modifications in the budget creating fresh commitments amounting to EUR 51 640 000. These funds will go to the fighting of bluetongue, the creation of a high flux reactor in addition to funds directed to Europol and OLAF. My vote here is consistent with the opinion of the rapporteur.
| null |
Derek Roland Clark
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I acknowledge the very real need for a bluetongue vaccine, and deplore the refusal of the UK Government to assist its farming community on this important issue. This report contained provisions related to this situation. However, this report also contained provisions totally unrelated to farming, which would have had a disastrous impact on the UK. In particular, this report called for funding to Eurojust and Europol, agencies that operate outside of the boundaries acceptable to British law. It is contemptible that the EU attempts to bury such provisions in these types of reports, and then requires MEPs to vote on them as a whole and not individual parts. Thus, I could not in good conscience support such a report, which explains my vote on the subject.
| null |
Nigel Farage
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I acknowledge the very real need for a bluetongue vaccine, and note the unhelpful attitude of the UK Government on this important issue. This report contained provisions related to this situation. However, this report also contained provisions totally unrelated to farming, which would have had a disastrous impact on the UK. In particular, this report called for funding to Eurojust and Europol, agencies that operate outside of the boundaries acceptable to British law. It is contemptible that the EU attempts to bury such provisions in these types of reports, and then requires MEPs to vote on them as a whole and not individual parts. Thus, I could not in good conscience support such a report, which explains my vote on the subject.
| null |
Mairead McGuinness
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
The Fine Gael members of the EPP Group voted in favour of Draft amending budget No 8/2009. We note that this vote includes the creation of a budget item to provide supplementary funding to the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten, Netherlands. Originally, the facility was set up to evaluate materials used in fusion and fission reactors. It has become an indispensable facility for the production of radioisotopes for the medical sectors, covering some 60% of European demand. The report also provides support for, among other things, a strengthened budget to eradicate the bluetongue disease and assistance with European policing and anti-fraud. On balance, given the nature of the HFR and the mix of budget items covered, the Fine Gael delegation voted to support Draft amending budget No 8/2009.
| null |
Kyriacos Triantaphyllides
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted in favour of the abovementioned report which includes an increase in loan commitments for programmes aiming at eradicating and tracking animal diseases as well as observing the physical well-being of animals which could present a threat to public health linked to external factors. At the same time, I would like to emphasise my disagreement with the other issues raised in the report, which should not have been included in this report: – The creation of budget item 10 04 04 02 (Operation of the high-flux reactor (HFR)); – The creation of budget item 18 05 02 03 (European Police); – A reinforcement of the Community subsidy to EUROJUST; – Modifications to the establishment plan of OLAF, without additional financial provisions.
| null |
Marie-Christine Vergiat
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
The report on Draft amending budget No 8/2009 of the European Union for the financial year 2009 includes some contradictory points. It focuses on the increase in resources to eradicate bluetongue disease in sheep, the pursuit of a research programme on the use of a nuclear reactor installed in the Netherlands, the Europol and Eurojust programmes, and OLAF. In voting against this draft report, I obviously did not wish to take a stand against provisions that are vitally important to sheep farmers. I wished to take a stand against the ever-persistent use of nuclear power. Above all, I wished to reaffirm my commitment to combating the construction of a fortress, security-driven and ineffective Europe to ensure the safety of our fellow citizens, via the Europol and Eurojust budgets. There is a need to curb these policies which, in the name of the fight against insecurity and terrorism, are increasingly undermining the fundamental freedoms and rights of our fellow citizens, and to review and redefine the mandates of the various Community agencies and bodies involved in these policies.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Presidents of the European Parliament, Ministers, Presidents and representatives of the European institutions, ladies and gentlemen, and above all, dear friends. I stand before you today as the thirteenth President of the directly-elected European Parliament. I am pleased to see a number of former Presidents here among us today: Mr Emilio Colombo, Mr Enrique Barón Crespo, Mr Egon Klepsch, Mr Klaus Hänsch, Mr José María Gil-Robles, Mrs Nicole Fontaine, Mr Pat Cox and Mr Hans-Gert Pöttering. (Applause) Your presence is a great privilege for us all. As many of you have said, my election is also symbolic – symbolic of the dream of a united continent held by the citizens in our part of Europe, a dream that has now been fulfilled. My dear colleagues from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta, I know and understand the concerns, needs and expectations of those who recently joined the Union. I know, because in my country they are the same. However, now we bear a shared responsibility for the future of our continent. The old and new Europe are no more. This is our Europe! We want it to be modern and strong. And we want our citizens to see it as such. This calls for energy and hard work. It is a goal that generations of Europeans have dreamed of and one worthy of the great effort needed to achieve it. I am ready to do that work and make that effort, because those dreams were also my dreams. (Applause) Ladies and gentlemen, as we begin this new parliamentary term, Europe and we ourselves – its representatives – face many challenges. We must meet those challenges. We must remember that, in striving for a better Europe, the European Parliament plays a special role, a role that is not only institutional, but also social, a deeply symbolic role. The European Parliament is the essence of the European democratic system. It is the basis for the permanence and stability of that system, a guardian of the ideals and values embodied not only in our decisions and their effects, but also in our debates. However, the European Parliament has another task to fulfil – the task of creating a vision of a new Europe, a vision which extends beyond the present, beyond what Europe is towards what it should be. In order to create this vision together, we need imagination, knowledge, wisdom and, above all, courage. Hannah Arendt, a German philosopher of Jewish origin, said that politics is the only area of life, except for religion, where miracles happen. Exactly 20 years ago, we in Europe witnessed such a miracle and that is why we believe in the power of courage, imagination and wisdom. I think that all of us here today share that belief. (Applause) I view the challenges that face us with optimism. For me, the important challenges before us are: firstly, the economic crisis and European solidarity; secondly, energy and the environment; thirdly, foreign policy; fourthly, human rights and our system of values; and fifthly, our Parliament and how to reform it. The most painful and most difficult question facing us is the economic crisis. We must overcome it and we will overcome it. Europe took the lead in proposing solutions to the G8 and G20 summits, solutions which, while preserving our social model, can help the world put its economy to rights. In the face of globalisation, Europe must speak with one voice. Now more than ever, in this time of crisis, we must focus on economic growth and fighting unemployment. We must breathe fresh life into the ideas of the Lisbon Strategy and find ways of investing in new technologies, innovation, education and human resources. The Community budget has an important role to play in ensuring that European research programmes have clear priorities and procedures. Under the new Treaty, Parliament and the Council will enjoy equal budgetary powers. The codecision procedure will include agriculture, fisheries, external trade, and justice and home affairs, while also giving us equal responsibilities in the area of agricultural spending. We must guard against the temptation of protectionism and the renationalisation of common policies. The cohesion policy must remain a priority in the next Community budget if we wish to achieve full integration of our reunited continent. The single market is our great achievement. We must protect it and consolidate it to ensure that Europe remains competitive. This means that European integration must be strengthened, not weakened. Let us have the courage of our convictions. If we are to revitalise, understand and live in the Community we are building, two things are essential: solidarity and social cohesion. There can be no true community without concern for everyone, especially the most vulnerable – the unemployed, the least educated, those living in remote regions. Fighting unemployment is the main aim of the Swedish Presidency. We shall assist them vigorously in that task. Behind the Iron Curtain, the cry in the streets was once: ‘There can be no freedom without solidarity’. Now we can say: ‘Without solidarity there can be no community.’ Nor can there be a modern, strong Europe. (Applause) We cannot overcome the economic crisis without making use of the vast intellectual, economic and creative potential of women. The demographic crisis calls for a strengthening of family and fertility. We must also ensure that women do not have to sacrifice their careers for their family and to bring up children. (Applause) In order to overcome the demographic crisis, while standing by our democratic principles, we must also be an open community. Immigration has always brought Europe benefits. We must propose solutions that will enable us to invite immigrants and create the conditions for their integration, while also expecting them to be open to such integration. We are facing an energy crisis. Europeans may not understand geopolitics, but they understand if their heating is turned off. We must continue to diversify our energy resources and step up investment in renewable energy sources and fossil fuels. Nuclear power is available to us and this is a matter for Member States to decide. We must extend the external pipeline network so as not to be dependent on any particular country. We need to increase the interconnections between our gas and electricity networks. We must also consider the possibility of purchasing gas jointly, so as to establish a genuine European energy market based on solidarity. I believe that the time has come for the Union to have a real common energy policy and I will strive to achieve that. (Applause) Energy also prompted the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, the seed from which our Community sprang. At that time, Robert Schuman said: ‘The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war ... becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible’. This was the original idea behind that Community. Our energy policy must take into account the environmental threats linked to climate change. We need a green revolution and we must curb our own excesses. The European Parliament is spearheading the debate on this subject. Together with many of you, I worked on the Temporary Committee on Climate Change. You know where I stand and you know that I will work with you to reach a compromise in Copenhagen. Parliament is an important actor on the international stage. This is what our citizens expect of us. Europe must be more present not only within the borders of the European Union, but also worldwide. Developing a coherent and effective foreign policy which includes a vision of the global order must be one of the great challenges during this Parliament. Jean Monnet once said that everyone has ambition. The question is whether you use that ambition to become someone, or rather to achieve something. During this Parliament, let us have the ambition to achieve something. So what are the most important goals? First: an active policy towards the European Union’s neighbours in the south and east. With this in view, we should continue our work in the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly and take action within the framework of the Euronest Assembly. Second: we should promote democracy and models of good governance. We should use the interparliamentary assemblies and our delegations to hold parliamentary summits in advance of the Union’s bilateral summits. This is important, because the European Parliament will be involved in decisions on a greater number of policies. EUROLAT is a good example of this kind of cooperation. Third: it is time we had a genuine transatlantic parliamentary partnership, building together a new framework for the world order. I shall strive to forge closer ties with the United States Congress at all levels. Fourth: we must work on our strategic partnership with Russia, while not forgetting that, as in our relations with China, economic and political considerations cannot take precedence over human rights, the rule of law and democracy. (Applause) As President of this Parliament, I shall engage fully in dialogue with our Russian partners, notably in the context of the new Baltic strategy. Fifth: we must strengthen our relations with India and other emerging powers such as Brazil and the Republic of South Africa. India must be both an economic and a political partner. Sixth: the Middle East remains the key to global stability. Europe must play an active role in this region. Seventh: enlargement has been one of our most successful political strategies. Did any of our European forebears ever enjoy such a long period of peace and prosperity as we now have? At present, Croatia, and perhaps Iceland, appear to be the countries closest to accession. Eighth: the European Union is the world’s biggest aid donor. We must examine where we stand with current and potential beneficiaries and not forget our obligations towards them under the Millennium Development Goals. We may close our doors to some who would come here, but let us not close our hearts and let us do what we can to bring life in their home countries closer to the standards we enjoy in Europe. Ninth: we must strengthen the Union’s missions under the European security and defence policy. There have been 22 such missions over the past six years and they should enjoy a clear mandate and the resources needed to do their job. The European Parliament wants to ensure closer control and monitoring of these missions. The wider budgetary powers Parliament will enjoy under the Treaty of Lisbon may improve our flexibility when it comes to allocating resources to the essential missions we support. The implementation of the new Treaty must be our priority for the immediate future. I am committed to preparing Parliament to function in accordance with the new provisions as soon as the Treaty comes into force. Yet, regardless of the Treaty, we feel the need for change. We feel the need for a more dynamic parliamentary dimension within our institution. As President of Parliament, I want to draw on the vital work on parliamentary reform begun in recent years by my predecessors. But we must go further down that road. I shall do all I can to make more room for creative political debate within our Parliament. (Applause) I firmly support making greater use of the ‘catch-the-eye’ system for speakers, as a way of enlivening our plenary debates, and use will be made of this system after my speech. This is particularly important in guaranteeing minority rights. The most important missing link in the reform process is the improvement of relations with the other European Union institutions – the Commission and Council. A significant part of my term of office will be devoted to this. As President, I shall seek to develop a new model of partnership with the Commission so as to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the executive and make the executive branch more accountable to this House, as the Treaty of Lisbon directs. In July, I invited the Commission President to take part in a question time to be held each month in Parliament, during which Members would be able to ask questions from the floor. I propose that we introduce such a practice as soon as possible. (Applause) Two weeks ago, President Barroso forwarded to us his ‘political guidelines’ for a second term. This is a significant innovation, since it marks an acceptance of the fact that it is the European Parliament which elects the Commission President. I take great satisfaction in this. I have also encouraged the parliamentary committees to examine legislation still in the pipeline and to determine whether the new Commission intends to abandon, amend or maintain its legislative proposals. I am also encouraging the committees to hold serious discussions on future political strategy so as to ensure that the hearings of Commissioners-designate are based on a detailed legislative programme and not just on an assessment of their CVs and professional experience. We must forge closer relations with the Council of Ministers. If these relations are to be credible, they must reflect the fact that in today’s European Union, Parliament is a true co-legislator. We must also work together on the institutional questions arising from the Treaty of Lisbon. These concern the extension of the codecision procedure, the new comitology system, the appointment of the new High Representative and Commission Vice-President, democratic control over the new external action service and the question of how to deal with the ‘dual Council Presidency’ during plenary sittings. Our relations with the 27 national parliaments of the European Union must be developed in the same spirit. In recent years, cooperation has been on the increase and the Treaty of Lisbon will further strengthen these contacts and enhance their role in making citizen-friendly laws. A fine example of this cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments is the Stockholm Programme, with its focus on justice and public security. I want to push ahead with reforms in the use of Parliament’s human resources and expenditure, so that they are focused directly on our programmes. The richness and strength of our institution also derive from our differences – different nationalities, different ways of thinking and different languages. That is why Members must be able to speak in their mother tongue, if they so wish, so that they can properly represent their voters. We must always remember that the Union is not only about the challenges of the future and a vision of ever-increasing prosperity and stability. It is, above all, about human rights. I have noted with concern the tensions in relations between Slovakia and Hungary over national minorities. This remains a major problem, and I should like to offer my assistance in resolving this dispute in accordance with the values in which we firmly believe and which reflect the convictions of our Parliament. (Loud applause) A good example of how we uphold these values is the Sakharov Prize awarded to human rights defenders, who now form the basis of a ‘Sakharov network’, something which I intend to develop further. I should also like to press ahead with the project for a House of European History begun by my predecessor, who is present today, and who is still a Member of the European Parliament, which is something we are very pleased about.I should also like us to remember once again here in this House that the Union is a community of ideals and values. This is the foundation on which it was built. I am determined to take measures to ensure that all committees and delegations have access to satellite television and the Internet. We need to look at the way in which European elections are organised. For example, we should insist on the use of new technologies during elections in order to boost turnout. It is also time to open a debate on European political parties. Citizens must know what they are voting for – not only in their own countries, but also at European level. I attach great importance to cooperation with the Conference of Presidents. Together, we will take responsibility for the work of this House, along with the 14 Vice-presidents, whom I thank for their expressions of support. I also appreciate the spirit of partnership shown by the chairmen of our parliamentary committees. I should like the chairmen of the standing interparliamentary delegations to be able to exert a significant influence over the Union’s foreign policy. Matters relating to Parliament’s budget will be addressed with the help of the Quaestors. Most of all, however, my dear colleagues, I am counting on your cooperation. As President of the European Parliament, I know that I am responsible for providing you with good working conditions, but I would strongly urge you all to share this burden. For most of us, the Treaty of Lisbon represents a long-awaited institutional solution. It will improve the Union’s ability to resolve existing problems and will bring the European institutions closer to our citizens. The late Bronisław Geremek, in whose honour we have named the main courtyard of the Strasbourg Parliament, was fond of saying that European integration was like riding a bicycle: you have to keep pedalling to maintain your balance and to keep going in the right direction. This illustrates precisely why ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon is so necessary for us. (Applause) Less than a week ago, I was present in the Polish Parliament to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the first non-communist government in our part of Europe, under the leadership of Tadeusz Mazowiecki. It was a particularly moving anniversary, because it marked the beginning of the rapid collapse of the totalitarian system in other Central European countries. It was this first breach which made it possible to bring down the wall dividing Europe. I am speaking to you here today in Strasbourg, the capital of a region whose fate is reminiscent of that of my own region, Silesia, a border region whose inhabitants have frequently had to change their nationality without changing where they lived. I solemnly pledge that, as President of Parliament over these coming years, I will serve as your ambassador, bringing the message of a reunited continent to the citizens of Europe and the world. Let us work together to find real and practical solutions to the great challenges now facing Europe and the world. Let us work to make our dreams come true. Let us set about this task with enthusiasm, wisdom and courage. Because this is our Europe. A modern Europe. A strong Europe. (The House accorded the speaker a standing ovation)
| null |
Joseph Daul
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Presidents of the European institutions, Mr Buzek, my group fully subscribes to your programme for Parliament and the running of Parliament over the next five years. If the European Parliament has a role to play, a mission to accomplish, over the next five years, it is indeed to reconcile the citizens with Europe. And what better advantage in this task than to have as President a man who symbolises reunified Europe, a man such as yourself, Mr Buzek. That is why I would like to say how proud I am that it was my group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), that persuaded a very large majority of this Parliament to put their trust in you. This Europe, reunified today, is not about intolerance or exclusion, but about openness and respect for the opinions and the origins of others. I am convinced that this concept of living together as Europeans brings us all together in this House. What I would like is for the European Parliament, under your leadership, to have our fellow citizens share these values. I also support the determination that you have expressed, Mr President, to rise to this challenge, and I hope that we will make a particular effort in favour of young people. My group has no hesitation in helping you. Mr President, as you said, this Parliament has acquired powers and increased authority over the last few years. The prospect of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon will increase this trend spectacularly. This is one of the reasons why the PPE Group is calling for its application as soon as possible. We must prepare ourselves for it technically, of course, so that we can work effectively with the Council and in close partnership with the Commission, but we must also and, above all, prepare ourselves for it politically. Our primary objective is clear: to ensure that Parliament is more in tune with the 500 million citizens that it represents. To do so, it must continue, in particular, to modernise its working methods, for example in the organisation of our debates – you alluded to this. In this regard, I support your proposal to have a lively topical debate with the President of the Commission. Ladies and gentlemen, the workings of the European Union are difficult to explain to Europeans. Far from the traditional ‘opposition/majority’ model to which we are accustomed in our Member States, we work here, I would stress, in search of a consensus, beyond the specific convictions of our political families. That, in my view, is a modern take on political action. I am convinced that our fellow citizens can accept this approach, but on one condition: that we take the trouble to explain to them better the issues at stake in Europe. That is the task that I encourage you, Mr President, to undertake and for which you will receive the full support of my group.
| null |
Martin Schulz
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I endorse the comments made by Mr Daul. Mr Buzek, our group can also endorse many, if not all, of the points in the programme which you have presented. This applies to the content of your presentation, to the procedural updates that you have proposed and to the revitalisation of the debate in this House. The broad majority of the Members of this House will agree with the content of the speech that you have given. I do not fully share Mr Daul’s opinion that you have laid down your programme for the next five years. Let us work on the basis of the next two-and-a-half years to start with, because that is a long time. However, I believe, Mr Buzek, that you are taking over your office at a difficult time for the European Union. You are also taking over your office at a difficult time for the European Parliament. For the first time in a long time, the pro-European consensus is no longer undisputed in this House. On the contrary, this House is, for the first time, a platform – this began in the last parliamentary term and has been reinforced by the most recent European elections – in which forces are at work and have gained attention and influence whose aim is exactly the opposite of what you have said in your speech. The number of Members of this assembly who want to bring an end to European integration, the number of Members who want to reverse it and the number of Members who want renationalisation has risen dramatically. In the previous parliamentary term, we experienced the process of attempting to have the Charter of Fundamental Rights signed by the three presidents of the institutions. I would not have believed images and scenes of this kind to be possible in a multinational, democratic parliament, but we all bore witness to what happened. The number of Members who hold opinions of this kind has increased. This is why I would say that you are right. The struggle to continue with and to deepen the integration process, the struggle for the Treaty of Lisbon, which is a fundamental requirement for the extension of the EU, and also the struggle to extend the EU on the basis of deeper integration, represent the right approach. I am pleased that the President of this House – especially a President from a country which joined the EU in the most recent phase of enlargement, a President who, as Prime Minister of his country, began the accession negotiations – says as the central message of his period of office: we want more Europe. We want an integrated Europe, we want a deeper Europe and we want an enlarged Europe as part of the deepening process, in order to achieve one thing, and this was the central sentence in your speech: the solidarity which has led to freedom. This is the solidarity which we now need internally, so that this freedom can be achieved together with social justice. For this reason, the socialists and social democrats fully agree with your speech, Mr Buzek. It forms the ideological and spiritual foundation of a struggle which we must take part in during this parliamentary term. When I was a newly elected Member, I had the privilege of hearing the speech made here by the French President François Mitterand in his role as President-in-Office of the Council. I have never forgotten one sentence in that speech: ‘In the end, nationalism always means war.’ This means that in the end, the opposite of nationalism, overcoming nationalism, the European ideal, means peace. That is what we will be fighting to achieve together with you, Mr Buzek. (Applause)
| null |
Guy Verhofstadt
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank you on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe for your inaugural speech. Our group can fully identify with the programme you announced. As I told you at the time, Mr President, I welcome your election as President of Parliament, not only because you symbolise the enlargement of the European Union but also – and I should like to emphasise this – on account of your involvement with Solidarność. After all, Solidarność can look back on three great achievements. It gave people in Poland a vote, it introduced democracy to the entire former Eastern Bloc, and it even changed the face of Europe fundamentally, unifying a divided Europe. As was clear from your speech, Mr President, this gives you the perfect experience to realise three ambitions in the European Parliament, too, over the next few years. These ambitions are to give the European people more say, to make the European Union more democratic and also, in this way, to advance European integration. Ladies and gentlemen, I think it would be good to underline further to President Buzek’s inaugural speech that, according to the Eurobarometer, the European Parliament is the European Union institution in which citizens have the most confidence. This represents a difficult task for us all, as it means that we cannot betray this confidence and that we must give the people’s voice more influence in European decision making. At the same time – based on your speech, Mr President – I think that we face a dual challenge. Firstly, we must apply the Treaty of Lisbon and implement it as soon as possible. In this regard – as you have proposed – we must enter into negotiations with the Council Presidency as soon as possible in order to agree a number of amendments. Secondly, Mr President – and this is the other aspect of the challenge – I think that Parliament must avail itself of all the possible levers at its command to further expand its power. We have done this in the procedure for the appointment of the Commission President, but we must continue to do it on every possible point in other dossiers, too. In my view, the most important point in this connection is the need to agree a new budget for Europe and the European Union in the next few years. I consider this a splendid opportunity for the European Parliament to urge – to require – that, in future, this budget be based on the European Union’s own resources, as this Parliament will not be a real parliament until it also has complete control over its own resources, which it will be able to collect itself in future. (Applause) Herein lies an important task for you, Mr President: to join the whole of Parliament in this fight. In this, you will be able to count on the full support of our group, as we all know, particularly in these times of economic and financial crisis, that it is not nationalism or protectionism that will relieve our difficulties or secure our future; only continuing European integration represents a solution for the peoples of Europe, for the citizens of Europe. In any case, I wish you every success, Mr President. (Applause)
| null |
Rebecca Harms
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I do not need to go over much of what the previous speaker has said. It was clear to my group that we would support your candidacy, because we felt that it was high time that a major figure from the European Parliament, who also comes from one of the new Member States, took on the role of the head of this House. In future, we would like to see the President of this House being elected on the basis of considerations such as your special skills and abilities, which have often been acknowledged. We would also like to see the power of national delegations within the large groups perhaps being applied to a slightly lesser extent than the approach which figures like you adopt. We have great expectations of you when it comes to overcoming the major breaches which remain between East and West and which I described some weeks ago. Following the summer holidays and my observations of political developments, I would simply like to say that you are likely to have a very difficult task. My impression is that the major global financial crisis and the subsequent economic crisis have not made the job of bringing East and West closer together within the EU any easier. On the contrary, the challenges have become greater because the imbalances represent a major problem. I would also like to take a slightly more critical approach and remind Parliament that today is the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. We are sending a large delegation to the G20 summit where the subject of how the financial crisis can be overcome will be discussed. However, this Parliament has not managed to discuss any resolutions in this area and has not given our negotiators a uniform basis on which to work. I believe that this is an expression of weakness rather than strength. I suspect that what lies behind this is that we still cannot agree on the analysis of how we actually got into this mess. I believe that this major crisis is not solely the responsibility of a few crazy bankers, but that in fact, it is due to the neo-liberal belief in the benefits of unregulated financial markets, which not only was and is prevalent in the US, but also remains widespread in Europe today. In the policies of the European Union we are far from reaching a consensus on the evaluation of this analysis and, therefore, we are also unable to agree on the ways out of the crisis. I also believe, Mr President, that everything which you said about the second major challenge facing us in the context of an international round of negotiations, that is, the challenge of the climate crisis, was correct. I hope that we Europeans can take a stronger position in Copenhagen than is currently the case. I have the impression that the Europeans are still a long way from playing an appropriate leading role in the area of climate policy. There are many reasons for this, but one reason keeps coming to my mind. We continue to put far too little trust in concepts such as the Green New Deal put forward by Ban Ki-moon or Achim Steiner on behalf of the UN. We are also unable to agree that we should begin transforming our old industrial society, that we should think more than one day ahead and that climate-friendly technologies, efficiency technologies and many other measures represent the future, not only of Europe but also of the world. I can only say, Mr President, that we face major challenges. If you intend to put forward modern, sustainable ideas, our group will definitely be behind you. It is regrettable that we will not see a real change in the staffing of the European Commission because it is becoming apparent that the main player behind yesterday’s concepts, Mr Barroso, will continue to head the Commission during the next parliamentary term. Mr President, we wish you luck! On behalf of my group, I look forward to some exciting and, hopefully, productive debates. (Applause)
| null |
Michał Kamiński
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it was a real pleasure today to listen to your speech and your programme for the next two and a half years of our work. Thank you very much for your speech. It testifies to your respect for us, Members of the European Parliament, a respect which does not depend on which political group or country we come from, or on what views we represent. It was a stimulating speech, because I think that our Parliament is truly in need of the kind of leadership which you have presented in your vision today. We do not agree about everything, and it is not a secret that there are differences of opinion between us, but I would like to begin with this, responding in some sense to the voices which I have also heard in this House today. It is not a bad thing that Parliament is a place of debate, and that Parliament is a meeting place for people who may have different views on different subjects, including different views on the future of Europe. The problem is that we should endeavour, in good faith, to confront our views with those of others – then there will always be room for compromise. If we assume – and I do assume – that everyone in this House has good intentions and wants the best for our continent, then we will be able to overcome differences, and we will always be open to discussion. What is needed is that good will. Of course, however, Mr President, our group, the European Conservatives and Reformists, a group which is proud that it brings to Parliament a certain new dimension to political thinking about Europe, is going to want to be a strong voice for those citizens who elected us. For while we do not negate the democratic mandate of any Member who sits in this House, indeed, we deeply respect that mandate, it is our voters whom we represent. Our voters, when they chose parties which are part of the ECR Group, knew what they were voting for. Mr President, your election was an historic moment. I will permit myself to remind our fellow Members and say that today in this House, there is a group of young Poles, invited by Members of different political groups. These Poles were born on 4 June, on the day of the first partially free elections held in our country. A meeting with people born on 4 June may not allow us to feel young any more, when we see that they are now adult people. However, I want to say that when I talked with them today, and I realised that they got on the bus in Rzeszów, a city in the south-east of Poland, and without having to stop at any borders, they came here to Strasbourg, to their Parliament, I thought that none of us who remember 4 June could imagine such felicitous events – today, young Poles, young Czechs, Estonians and Lithuanians come here to their Parliament. Mr President, I am certain that you will guard this Parliament as a democratic institution, as a place of genuine debate of people who sincerely want to help the citizens of the European Union. And today, when we recall that you too, Mr President, come from my country, a country which has suffered so much at the hands of totalitarianism, we know one thing – and this truly is the best thing about the EU – the European Union has ensured the nations of Europe 60 years without war. This is a great achievement of this organisation, an organisation which we, the ECR Group, do want to reform, as our name indicates, but it is an organisation which we believe in. We believe in a better Europe, and it is such a Europe, a better Europe, which is closer to its citizens, that we will serve during this parliamentary term. (Applause)
| null |
Eva-Britt Svensson
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would once again like to congratulate you on your election. Transparency, democracy and pluralism are honourable words for the EU and for Parliament, but they must never be turned into mere symbolic policies. Unfortunately, these terms sometimes become nothing more than fine words. In reality, agreements are made behind closed doors. We therefore need a different method of working in Parliament, one where our work and our decisions are brought into the open in a genuine spirit of true democracy. We need an open way of working that applies to all political groups and all Members of the House. If some MEPs do not even feel involved in and aware of the work, how can we expect our citizens to feel involved and have confidence in our work and to vote in elections? Let us have new technology by all means – we need it to provide information – but we must not forget the most important ingredients for involvement. These are democracy and transparency. We are experiencing a financial crisis and an environmental and climate crisis. I should also mention that we have trade agreements which sometimes exacerbate the problems with regard to food supply and poverty in the world. The view of the left is that the solution to the crises is not to continue with the same policy that has sometimes been a contributory factor in creating them. The people of Europe need a different policy. They deserve a different policy – a policy that puts the needs of the people first and not, as is currently the case, the needs of the market. One way to start to move the policy in the right direction is to stop the privatisation and deregulation of public services. The market has not, in fact, succeeded when it comes to satisfying people’s need for work and social rights, for example. We have to suffer the consequences of this. We talk about democracy. Democracy also requires that our civil rights and freedoms never be violated. We currently have many proposals for the additional monitoring of our citizens. Freedom of expression must also apply on the Internet. Thus, the EU and its citizens need a different policy for a fairer society with greater solidarity. We in the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left are prepared, and gladly accept our responsibility, to play our part in building a fairer EU with greater solidarity and a fairer and better world.
| null |
Francesco Enrico Speroni
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I again extend my congratulations to you on your appointment. I welcomed your address, your programme, and wish to concentrate on an aspect which, in my opinion, is the most important or should be the most important for us MEPs, namely our legislative work. Dialogue with the major powers is important, missions are important, but the main task of a parliament – at least in my opinion – is to make laws, to establish rules, because, above all, we were elected to carry out this task, this mandate. One of the problems is that we do not have the right of legislative initiative, since the founding fathers and their successors denied it to us. We are continually voting for resolutions and signing written statements which are not followed up as the Commission does not take them into account. Mr Barroso said that this is only right as otherwise, if the Commission were to accept legislative proposals from Parliament through written declarations and resolutions, it would violate the treaties, which do not permit this. Allow me to say that I find this interpretation specious: the treaties do not provide for it explicitly, but neither do they prohibit it. I must point out that when Parliament asks for something, when Parliament asks for a legislative initiative, it does so on behalf of millions of European citizens, the majority of the millions of European citizens, since both written declarations and resolutions need majority support in order to be adopted. I am therefore sure that you, Mr President, will work hard to make the Commission accept that the proposals we MEPs put forward can become EU legislation, in accordance with the will of the people, our electors. It is an onerous task, but I am certain that you will make every effort to accomplish it.
| null |
Bruno Gollnisch
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, as a non-attached Member I speak, of course, on my own behalf, but also on behalf of some of my colleagues, not my Dutch colleagues from the PVV, but my colleagues from the Front National, from the Bulgarian Ataka party, from the Austrian FPÖ party, from the British National Party, from the Hungarian Jobbik party and from the Flemish Vlaams Belang party. I should like to say, Mr President, that I do not for one second doubt the sincerity of the proposals you have made. However, you will permit me to say that I have doubts about their realism. You began by raising the problem of the economic crisis. It is a fact that millions of Europeans are seeing their assets and jobs threatened by the perverse effects of globalisation, which abandons them, for the benefit of the few, to the unfair competition of countries whose workers are cynically exploited, and to the rapacity of stateless financial interests. The Union, sadly, has not protected Europeans from this situation. On the contrary, it has plunged them into it. Secondly, from my modest position, but expressing the political forces that Mr Schulz was quite willing to admit are a threat to the traditional organisations – and I thank him for it – I should like to call on our Parliament, and yourself, Mr President, to be more modest and to set certain voluntary limits to our powers. I am thoroughly convinced, as a European and as a Christian, that a number of the values that we convey are universal values. I am even happier to insist that it is not our job to give the world principles and laws, all the more so because organisations, such as the United Nations, exist for that very purpose, and all the more so because there is a great deal to do in Europe itself, where, against the right to life, we are providing for the elimination of our own children, and where, against freedom of expression, we are pushing through a moral, media, political and judicial dictatorship of what is known as ‘political correctness’. Political groups such as ours that express the suffering and the hopes of millions of Europeans are discriminated against, pursued and sometimes even dissolved, as the Vlaams Blok party was in Belgium in an absolute scandal that provoked not a single protest in this House. Had that have happened in Africa or in Latin America, we undoubtedly would have heard a different version of events. We non-attached Members do not have the same rights as the others – that much is clear – and, as we told you yesterday, we still do not have any representatives at the Conference of Presidents. Finally, due to the voting methods, millions of Europeans are denied the possibility of being represented in their own countries’ legislative bodies, which are supposed to represent the electorate in all its diversity. To conclude, I should like to express the wish that we remember, at all times in our work, that Europe is, in the history of mankind, the region that invented the freedom of nations, which cannot be found elsewhere; the equal dignity of those nations; and respect for their jurisdiction and for the principle of non-interference, which means that everyone is in charge of their own affairs and on their own territory. That is one of the great contributions of European civilisation to man’s heritage.
| null |
Cecilia Malmström
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, this is my first opportunity in my capacity as a member of the Council Presidency to stand before this Chamber and, on behalf of the Swedish Presidency and the whole of the Council and also myself personally, I would like to congratulate you most sincerely Mr President. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is wonderful to see you in this position. It is a personal victory for you, I know. It is a victory for the European Parliament and it is also a victory for all of us who fervently support European cooperation and everything it stands for. I would also like to thank you for the visionary speech and the ambitious plans you have for this Parliament. I am convinced that the European Parliament rests safe in your hands. During your leadership, you will hopefully bring about concrete decisions, but indeed also the miracle you referred to. We in the Council look forward to working with you and the European Parliament. Many Members have spoken of the numerous challenges we are facing: the climate question, the economic crisis, jobs, Europe’s role in the world and so on. You have an important legislative role here, in representing citizens, but also in the debate that is held here. It is extremely important for the European Parliament to always stand up for European values. If the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force – and that is something that I certainly hope will happen – the European Parliament’s role will be extended and you will have a greater influence on the European agenda. I know that you will take the defence of the European Parliament and the institution’s role seriously, but you will also hopefully be a bridge to other institutions as well as a serious partner for dialogue. The Presidency is very much looking forward to being your partner for dialogue over the next six years and we wish you the best of luck in your work.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
I would like to say to all new Members of the European Parliament that the Minister is a former Member of this House, and so is one of us.
| null |
José Manuel Barroso
|
EU Commission President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, on behalf of the Commission and on my own behalf, I want sincerely to congratulate you once again and wish you all the best in your term of office. Your election symbolises not only the reunification of Europe, but also a Europe that is very much attached to the central values of freedom and solidarity. Personally and institutionally I want to commit to close cooperation with you and with the European Parliament. Parliament and the Commission are the two Community institutions par excellence at the heart of Community matters. You and all the Members of this Parliament have been directly elected by our citizens and the Commission has the right and the duty to put European interests above any particular interest. I believe that we have a special responsibility for the European project in full respect of the Treaties. That is why I want to reiterate my willingness to work together to advance European parliamentary democracy. (Applause)
| null |
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr Buzek, I very much enjoyed your speech and especially the part about the institutional, but also social role played by Parliament, which you described as the very essence of the European democratic system. Today we are celebrating the Union of 27 which has come together once more, meeting here following the divisions caused by the ideologies of terror which built walls on our continent, walls which did not endure and which were blown down by the winds of democracy and freedom. This year we are celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the first elections to Parliament by direct universal suffrage, together with the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I am pleased to recall, Mr Buzek, that when, for the first time, 30 years ago, my parents voted to elect the first MEPs from Italy, there was no right to vote in your country. In 1979, just one year after Karol Wojtyla was elected Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, while in Italy and in other countries the first European Parliament elections were being held, you were active in the then semi-clandestine trade union Solidarność, which fought to bring democracy and freedom to your country. To assert those same rights – democracy and freedom – we went to the polls, while every day you were risking your life and repression. For that reason, President Buzek, I am honoured to have contributed with my small and possibly non-decisive vote to your election, and I am pleased that today in Parliament, various histories are coming together and being ennobled, inspired by the same values and ideals: histories which make the great history of this young Europe strong.
| null |
Marek Siwiec
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I congratulate you on your election, and on a good speech. I would have liked you to devote a little more attention in your speech to the countries of Eastern Europe. In the near future, a very difficult election will be held in Ukraine. The European Parliament has a particular responsibility to show concern for democratic procedures in that country. It was in the European Parliament, in the foremost institution of the European Union, that support began for the great changes which took place five years ago. I would ask that this matter, connected with the presidential election in Ukraine, be treated in a special and unconventional way, with the involvement of those institutions and delegations which have been designated for this, so that the European Parliament will be known as a serious institution which is concerned about democratic procedures in Ukraine.
| null |
Eva Lichtenberger
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would like to congratulate you and I would like to say one thing to you in particular. A Parliament is measured by the way in which it uses and puts into practice its rights and by the fact that it does not withdraw from major political debate. We are all responsible for working together with you to ensure that this Parliament is not subjected to pressure from Commission proposals which are half-baked or which represent the unilateral interests of specific lobbyists. We are responsible for speaking up clearly at this point and we must do so. We must think about how the Treaty of Lisbon will change our situation. I hope that we will be able to do all of this. We must demonstrate clearly – and, in my opinion, this also concerns the question of the election of the Commission President – that we are making use of our rights and we must send a clear signal to the Commission. This means that there must now be no direct election of Mr Barroso.
| null |
Zoltán Balczó
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
President Buzek, allow me to address you directly, even though you are sitting in your member’s seat. Your election in this Parliament has been viewed as a sign that there is no longer an Eastern bloc, but a united Europe. You mentioned this in your address when you talked about there being no more old and new Europe, just our Europe. Unfortunately, many people do not feel this way. You also referred in your address to the great fear that pervaded the countries which joined only in 2004. Today, however, you are aware of the sense of disappointment felt in these countries. The reason for this is that there is no equality of rights. Equal rights are the key issue. Mr Lindblad, the state secretary, mentioned that equality of rights was the budget’s fundamental principle. If this really is the case, why is there no equality of rights with regard to agricultural subsidies? Hungary proved that it is able to receive them with its institutional system, yet it is still discriminated against. Mr President, you have encouraged everyone to use their mother tongue. I am pleased that in this Parliament, as a Hungarian, I can enjoy equal rights, but in Slovakia I would be punished for using my mother tongue. Mr President, you have suggested acting as a mediator. We sincerely thank you for this offer. However, a real result will only be achieved by this action if the Hungarian minority can freely use their mother tongue in the land of their birth. I wish you every success with this too.
| null |
Zuzana Roithová
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
cs
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I am truly delighted that you, a citizen of high moral standing and a Silesian to boot, are taking the baton from the hand of Hans-Gert Pöttering and that, like him, you are emphasising the potential of a united European Union in terms of values such as human rights and solidarity between nations. This election period in the shadow of the economic crisis will put that solidarity to the test. I do not fear for it as far as the voting here is concerned, but I know that individual citizens and regional politicians are ever more frequently scrutinising our voting under the slogan of ‘charity begins at home’. I would therefore like to call on you, Mr President, when reporting on our work here in the European parliament, to devote greater attention than has previously been the case to improvements in the position of Europeans in global terms.
| null |
Charles Tannock
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I have always admired Mr Barroso as our Commission President, who is an Atlanticist free-marketeer, which my party strongly supports and holds dear. I am also a strong friend of Portugal, so I am very happy to support José Manuel. However, I am concerned at what I read yesterday in the Daily Telegraph that he has agreed with the ALDE Group to create a powerful new and intrusive Human Rights Commissioner in his Commission, straddling external and internal human rights issues. This seems to fly in the face of the Centre Right-led decision of this Parliament to reject a new combined Human Rights Committee and duplicates the work of the Council of Europe and its own Human Rights Commissioner. Please can President Barroso clarify his policies and intentions here?
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
I think that this question should have been asked at a different time today, namely when we discuss Mr Barroso’s statement, and not at this time.
| null |
Csaba Sógor
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
President Buzek, you spoke about the Slovak-Hungarian dispute. It is not a Slovak-Hungarian dispute. It is, in fact, a Slovak-European Union dispute as it involves a country flouting fundamental European values. Your task is to help reach agreement not between Slovakia and Hungary, but between the European Union Parliament and Slovakia, as this country has infringed the documents and agreements which it has signed and ratified. Secondly, there is the issue of Silesia. I am pleased that you mentioned it. There are so many territories like this in the European Union which belonged to several different countries during the last century. We Hungarians were split among 10 countries after the First World War, of which seven are now EU Member States. We are very grateful that we can now be together without resorting to weapons and changing borders. During the last century, five official languages were learnt in the Lower Carpathians region. Why am I mentioning this? It is because in my own country too, where I live in the Székely Land, in Transylvania, the current Romanian Government is still ashamed of our mother tongue and symbols. However, the problem with Europe’s human rights values is not limited just to the Eastern bloc; it affects the West too. This is why we are urging that Europe have not only a commissioner for minorities, but also a minority framework law which is binding on every European country.
| null |
Diane Dodds
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, thank you for your speech. I believe, however, that our paths diverge considerably. I stand here before you as one who believes in a Europe of cooperating nations, not a Europe tied to the federalist approach of the Lisbon Treaty. On 2 October, the Irish electorate will be asked – for a second time – to vote for the Lisbon Treaty, a treaty cobbled together to circumvent the people’s rejection of a European Constitution. I commend the electorate of the Irish Republic for exercising good sense in the first referendum, sense that I believe that they will show once again in the second one. I urge them to remain firm in their resolve to reject the Treaty. The post-dated promises and threats have done nothing to change the fundamentals of the Treaty. It remains the wrong path for Europe and Europe’s nations. However, I believe that that choice should also be given to my people, the British people. They were promised a referendum by the Labour Government, and the Labour Government should fulfil that promise. If not, their possible successors in the Conservatives should do the same.
| null |
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, as a Hungarian and a friend of Poland, as well as an East European and a citizen of a new Member State, I derive great pleasure and satisfaction from your work as president because it can contribute to the full emancipation of the 12 new Member States. Until now, we have only been equal, but we would like to be more equal. You have made an historic pledge, Mr President, because you are prepared to tackle such a delicate issue as Silesia, which has not been tackled before. In other words, you are assuming a mediating role in dealing with national minority matters. Minorities account for 15% of Europe’s population, 6.5% of which are migrant or immigrant minorities, primarily in Western Europe, and 8.5% historical minorities. The fact that you are willing to mediate in the Hungarian-Slovak conflict and between the Slovak majority and the Hungarian ethnic community in Slovakia is an historic act. I hope that the Commission will also follow this example. We cannot sweep minority issues in Europe under the carpet. Thank you for your attention and I wish you every success.
| null |
Antonello Antinoro
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to express, Mr Buzek, how proud I am to be part of an institution as important as the European Parliament, which you chair. The sacrifices which you made in your country 20 years ago and which today allow those 12 countries which were mentioned earlier to be represented in this Chamber make Europe stronger. I would, however, like to express my concern over the programme you set out during your address which should, and I hope it will, strengthen Parliament. I hope that what you announced will come to fruition. I hope that the next President of the European Commission, who I am sure will be Mr Barroso, will listen to you on account of the forceful words that you used, to ensure that Parliament meets the needs of over 550 million European citizens who voted for us, who chose us, and who want and demand that Parliament and each and every one of us provide the answers which, perhaps, Europe has certainly tried to give, but without fully succeeding. With regard to this aspect of your work I am hopeful, and I am convinced that through you we will manage to attain that certainty that you yourself referred to.
| null |
Miloslav Ransdorf
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
cs
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
It was John Stuart Mill who said that parliament should be a mirror of national life. This is no mean feat and, in my opinion, it is important for our forthcoming term in office, especially as Europe is too important an issue to be entrusted solely to the decision making of the so-called political elites.
| null |
Michael Theurer
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would like to congratulate you warmly on your speech. The process of bringing an end to the division of Europe was the result, on the one hand, of the desire for freedom among Central and Eastern European countries and, on the other, of course, of the attractiveness of Europe as an economic model. I believe that we have too little confidence, too little confidence in the future. If we cannot achieve this in Europe, then who can? We should explain with greater conviction that we can work on resolving our problems with confidence. We have a great deal of potential and there are still opportunities for growth throughout the world. While there are still people in the world who need goods and services, there will still be opportunities for growth. We can make sure that in Europe, we have a slice of this cake and everyone involved will benefit. I would like to encourage all of us to have more confidence in Europe as a successful model and I would like to ask you to convey this idea in your speeches.
| null |
Krisztina Morvai
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Hungary commemorated the 1956 revolution and fight for freedom on 23 October 2006. On that day, a huge number of police, orchestrated by the government, attacked peaceful demonstrators, pedestrians and even numerous groups of foreign tourists in restaurants as they were quietly having a meal. Absolute terror reigned in the country. Many hundreds of people suffered serious injury, including 14 people who were shot in the eyes, many of whom also lost their sight. Many hundreds of people were put in prison and had sham criminal proceedings brought against them. This ended only recently with them all being released, virtually without exception. The Prime Minister paid tribute to the outstanding job done by the police. Today, Mr President, we have in this European Parliament Kinga Göncz, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, who was a member of that government which sanctioned the shooting. I would like to hear your view on this, Mr President. I would also like to ask you, on Hungary’s behalf, to be true to the spirit of solidarity, to fight for human rights in the European Union, and to fight to put an end to the human rights crisis which has been going on in Hungary since autumn 2006. I would also call on the person in this Parliament who reminds people of this situation and brings shame to the House to resign from her post as Vice-Chairman of the LIBE Committee.
| null |
László Tőkés
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
As a Hungarian living in Romania, I would like to congratulate President Jerzy Buzek, in the spirit of solidarity, a worthy successor to our former president, Hans-Gert Pöttering. In the spirit of solidarity, let us remember that Polish refugees were welcomed by Hungary 70 years ago. In the spirit of solidarity, I wish to express our pleasure that one of the key figures in Solidarność has been appointed to lead Parliament. Let us also remember Pope John Paul II and the faith aspect. Solidarność and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution signified freedom, while the events in Temesvár (Timişoara), along with the personality and spirituality of Pope John Paul, represent the power of faith. We also expect that through their accession, the Polish people and Eastern Europe will make the same contribution and bring greater faith. This is why I am looking forward to President Buzek’s presidency with confidence.
| null |
Wojciech Michał Olejniczak
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate you very sincerely, not only on your election, but also on your speech today, because you have shown that we have one Europe, and that there are no old and new countries. Europe also remains diverse, and what you have pledged, that the European Parliament will reflect this diversity in its work, is of immense value. This does not mean, however, that Europe is equal. Indeed, there are many differences, which we in the European Parliament should tackle. Citizens of the European Union very often receive entirely different remuneration for doing the same work. Citizens of the European Union today, in numbers which are always too high, are without work, and this is another matter which we should tackle. There is too much diversity and inequality in terms of access to the benefits associated with education, culture and health care. This is a tremendous challenge, which the European Parliament, under your leadership, should also set itself. I would like to find out what you think should be done, in the context of what was said about a common energy policy, with an undertaking which is today more German and Russian than European? I am thinking of the gas pipeline, because you spoke about energy policy. There is also the question of enlargement of the European Union – what about Ukraine? What time scale are we setting for the accession of Ukraine to the European Union?
| null |
Jerzy Buzek
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
I would like, first of all, to thank all those who spoke in the discussion for their extraordinary support. I understand that we may, in some specific cases, have different views. This is very good, because it always yields something new. Only an exchange of views, only a difference of views and discussion can give us answers to the most difficult questions. Yet the tremendous support which was expressed in the House during the speeches puts me under an additional obligation, because I understand that we stand before great challenges, and we must overcome them all. You have given me a mandate, an exceptional and strong mandate, and at an exceptional time. I should like to stress very strongly that I realise this and that I am aware of my responsibilities over the next two and a half years of work, not only that of the European Parliament, but of the entire European Union, and also for the impression our citizens have of our work, which is incredibly important. I would like to thank very warmly Mr Joseph Daul, Chairman of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). I very much appreciate the emphasis that it is our Europe. I consider myself to be one of those who have come here from Central and Eastern Europe, but today our common Europe requires corporate action. I do not forget where I have come from, but time is moving on so quickly. Integration requires that we feel a mutual responsibility, and that this responsibility also be borne by the new Member States – what we call the ‘new’ ones, although, as I said, there are no ‘new’ and ‘old’ ones. Mr Schulz stressed that it is a two-and-a-half-year programme. That may be so. What I really had in mind is that we need continuity. In fact, I was speaking about what Europe should be like in five or ten years, and what direction we should be taking. In two and a half years the new President will add new priorities, or he will modify the present ones slightly, but let us always have before us a longer perspective, perhaps even ten or fifteen years, so that we can anticipate events which might sometimes surprise us. Of course, I do agree that the best enlargement is the kind that results from our internal integration. Mr Verhofstadt stressed the significance of the citizen’s voice. I feel the same. The voice of the citizens has enormous significance here. Parliament represents the citizens, hence our great responsibility. He also stressed that in response to the crisis, we should come together, including in economic affairs, and make decisions together, which is just the opposite of protectionism, and I, too, stressed this in my speech. Mrs Harms spoke of relations with national parliaments. We make over 50% of European law, which is then approved by national parliaments, so it is very important that we have good relations with the parliaments in our countries. Why? – because we need greater contact with the citizens. There is no doubt that those parliaments, our own, national parliaments, have significantly better contact with the citizens. They are shown on television every day, which is not always true of our Parliament. Let the citizens learn about the importance of what we create here in the European Parliament, and in the European Commission and the European Council. Let them know that Parliament is responsible for over half of the decisions concerning our countries. Thanks to the fact that we will, from now on, be very close to the national parliaments, it will be easier for us to convey this. The crisis does, of course, reveal an enormous lack of trust. This is really what it was about. Mrs Harms and I have the same opinion on the issue of our climate. We were both in Bali, we were both in Poznań, and we will both be in Copenhagen. We will work out an agreement. Mr Kamiński stressed that we have different views on the future of Europe. I agree with this, and we should indeed listen to each other. If you represent what are today fairly large groups of citizens who have a somewhat different view of the future of Europe, this warns us about something, it informs us about something, and we, or I, who believe in a European future and European integration, know significantly more about Europeans because you raise various kinds of objections. As far as this question is concerned, you may be sure that the debate will be thorough. Mrs Svensson spoke about the transparency of Parliament, that we must know what decisions we make, and that our electors must also know. I concur entirely. I have no doubt that the problem of social justice is important. I myself have roots in a trade union, which I was in for very many years, and it was an ordinary trade union. However, we know perfectly well that in order to have the right means to help the poorest, we must have a healthy economy, and that we always have to try to find a balance between the one and the other. Mr Speroni spoke about appropriate and worthy cooperation with the European Commission and the European Council. Please remember that Parliament is growing in significance. The Treaty of Lisbon guarantees us considerably more powers than we have at present. This is a good thing, because we are, in fact, representatives who have been elected directly by the citizens of the EU. Mr Gollnisch does not doubt the sincerity of my intentions, but does he wonder whether they are realistic. I would like to say that 30 or 40 years ago, it was completely unrealistic to think that I should ever stand before such a comprehensive body and be answering your questions. It was so devoid of realism that I did not even dare dream of it. So we see that if we proceed on a particular course with profound faith and conviction, then those impossible things become possible. Let us endeavour to make the impossible become possible. (Applause) Mrs Malmström – yes, we are working with the Swedish Presidency. I have already been to Sweden. We talked about climate change, about the climate in Europe in general, about the crisis and about unemployment. There is also a very important programme – the Stockholm Programme. Let us remember this. Parliament has a lot to accomplish in the Stockholm Programme, including in the area of organised crime, and not only within the European Union. There is no doubt that we are going to work together with Mr Barroso. I like his offer very much. Mr Silvestris spoke of the brief history of the liberation of Europe, and I fully share his opinion. Mr Siwiec mentioned Ukraine. Actually, as far as I am concerned, this is an obvious matter, because I was part of the European Union delegation to Ukraine. I went to Ukraine three times, as you remember, and I did not want to go into this. Please remember that, for Europeans, every aspect of European cooperation is important: in the Mediterranean region, with Latin America and with the United States, but most important of all are our neighbours. Our neighbours are found around the Mediterranean Sea and in Eastern Europe. These are the main areas, Eastern and Southern Europe, but let us not argue about which is more important. Elections are approaching in Ukraine, and so for the next six months, Ukraine will certainly be the most important. However, let us not contend with one another in this way. It is very important that we maintain a balance. I fully endorse your opinion on this matter. Mrs Lichtenberger spoke of the role of Parliament when we make law. I agree, I agree that we must make law transparently, we must have our own opinion, but that is already de facto declared by Lisbon. If the Treaty of Lisbon comes into force, this will happen automatically. Mr Balczó asks if a unified Europe really does exist to the extent that I said in my speech. Yes, indeed, it does exist, and it is united, but it is still in the process of solving, in partnership, the problems of agriculture. I said firmly that the EU has funds for promoting cohesion. Since we have united, let us not break up in another way, as a result of a lack of reciprocity in the opportunities for citizens to develop. We will endeavour to achieve this. Some countries of the European Union have been members for 20 or 30 years and are still part of these programmes, and we all have the same rights. It is really a united Europe in which we have different standards of living. We will even out these differences, this is our hope and it is an opportunity for us, but let us now speak of a Community and also of our responsibility. I wanted to stress this very strongly. Mrs Roithová spoke about joint responsibility for the crisis, and I fully concur. Besides, we live so close to one another that there is almost no barrier to our understanding of each other already. This is extremely important for us. Mr Tannock mentioned a Human Rights Commissioner. This is, of course, a question to be decided by the Commission President and the Commission. However, I am sure that we and Mr Tannock will meet in Ukraine in a couple of months when the presidential election is held. Mr Sógor spoke of bilateral European discussions, so I would like to say that, indeed, it is best to resolve the problems of minorities bilaterally. However, it is also better to open borders than to move them. In Europe, we have learned not to argue about borders, and in our part of Europe we do not have this problem. We have simply opened borders, and that is our goal – it is our greatest achievement. Mrs Dodds said that the European Union should be a Europe of cooperating nations, and not a federal union. You spoke very wisely. We are, indeed, talking about cooperation between nations. We are talking about the need to retain identity, but also of the need for mutual openness and cooperation. I like your ideas very much, and the European Union in its present form, as well as in its form under the Treaty of Lisbon, are doing exactly as you suggest. Mr Tabajdi spoke of the regions, and also of my region, Silesia, and said that it is in a certain sense a kind of mediator. I agree. If they are transborder regions, they give the opportunity for better mutual understanding. Mr Antinoro then spoke about the achievements of my country. Thank you for your remarks. Will I bring strength to the European Parliament? I certainly have the energy to do this, but what is definitely needed is the energy of over 700 fellow Members. I am counting on this completely, and I understand that all of us are ‘energetic’. Mr Ransdorf does really represent the citizens and the life of the nation. I agree, and this is why the responsibility and the powers of the European Parliament are growing. Let us also allow the national parliaments to have a strong influence on what is happening in Europe. Mr Theurer spoke of the pursuit of freedom on the one hand, and of attractiveness on the other. Yes, over here it was attractive, but over there we were striving for freedom. It is true. Please note that we have assuaged the situation in the Balkans, and today the Balkans are at peace. May God be praised. The countries of that region are queuing up to join the European Union, and this is the great attractiveness of the EU. Mrs Morvai recalled some dramatic events. If you would like to give me some information about this, please give it to me in writing. I can also meet with you to discuss this so that I have an understanding of this matter. Mr Tőkés spoke about 1956 and Hungary. We all care very much about those events, and about our profound faith in the EU. Yes, I, too, believe deeply in the strength of the European Union. Mr Olejniczak, however, asked a series of questions about inequality in Europe. We must definitely speak about unity, but on the other hand, all the funds of which I spoke earlier are still operating, as are all the measures which are intended to give us the opportunity to eliminate inequality. They remain in force; nothing has changed here. The situation itself remains as open and as clear as it ever was, and so it is a very good thing that we do have a united Europe. As for an answer concerning the supply of oil, gas, and energy resources in general, we must speak about a common energy policy. Unnecessary tensions will not then arise between us. These build unnecessary walls between us which, after all, we have been dismantling for decades, and that is what the future is about. This is why I propose most definitely a common energy policy. Of course, in order to accede to the European Union, there are criteria which need to be fulfilled. It was also said that, in order for others to join the EU, we in the EU must be well integrated, because then the reception of new Member States will be effective. We need time for integration, but a country like Croatia is, to a great extent, ready for integration. I understand that Croatia has a strong possibility of accession to the EU fairly quickly, although it has encountered certain problems. It may be the same with Iceland, but it is very difficult to determine time frames for other countries which are not so well prepared. Please remember that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which are now in the EU started preparing for integration in 1991/1992, so it took 12 years. We prepared for integration for 12 years, and in fact we had better conditions than these countries currently have, because then the world situation was better – there was no crisis, and many other factors combined to give us a better situation. It takes a long time and I would not venture to give time frames, but let us remember that enlargement is a good European Union policy, although it is a long-term one. I would like once again to thank you all for the discussion. I have noted all the comments with great care, and they will now become a basis for thinking about certain modifications. Furthermore, we are going to meet regularly. I will sit here, where I am now, because I would like to be as close as possible to you all. (Applause)
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Thank you, Mr Buzek, not least for the painstaking precision with which you responded to all the speeches, without exception. The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 149)
| null |
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
I congratulate you on your election to the position of President of the European Parliament. Along with all our compatriots, I am proud that for the first time in history, a Pole has taken up this position of honour. This is, for us, confirmation of our role and position in Europe. At the same time, Poland is one of the few remaining countries which have not completed the ratification procedure for the Treaty of Lisbon, a treaty which would make European integration more effective. I find this paradoxical. I will remind you that the Polish Parliament approved ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon in April of this year, but the ratification documents have yet to be signed by the President. I think that you could make a valuable contribution to public debate in Poland and help to increase the support of society for the treaty, which could speed up completion of the ratification procedure. I would also like to thank you for your personal involvement in this matter in Ireland. I hope very strongly that the Irish people will vote ‘yes’ on 2 October, and that the necessary formalities will then be completed by the Czech Republic and Poland. Helping to bring an end to the ‘Lisbon ratification saga’ is one of the most important objectives of this Parliament, and I hope that it will also be one of its successes.
| null |
Filip Kaczmarek
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Inaugural address by the President of the European ParliamentVideo of the speechesPV
|
This is an important moment in the history of European integration. Thank you for the programme which you have presented. I hope that you will manage to complete this ambitious agenda. I wish you success in directing the work of the European Parliament in accordance with values which are important for all Europeans. Just as the Polish Solidarity movement was able to change the face of Poland and other countries in Central Europe, so European solidarity will enable us to meet the challenges before which we stand today. This will be possible under certain conditions, namely that our solidarity will have to be consistent, genuine and determined to bring about changes. Just as in Poland, where totalitarianism did not fall because of words, but because of deeds, so European solidarity will be effective if it is translated into specific action. I believe that this will indeed happen. This vision of the future of Europe is attractive to very many Europeans. I am counting on the European Parliament, under your leadership, Mr President, to play a positive and intensive role in making this vision a reality. Thank you very much.
| null |
Martin Schulz
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Approval of the minutes of the previous sittingVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I have no comments on the minutes of yesterday’s session, but instead I would like to comment on an incident in this morning’s session. My colleague, Kinga Göncz, a Member of Parliament in my group and former Hungarian Foreign Minister, was insulted in the debate this morning by Krisztina Morvai from the fascist Jobbik party in a completely unacceptable way. As Foreign Minister for Hungary, Mrs Göncz has worked harder than almost anyone else in the country to achieve international reconciliation between Hungary and its neighbouring countries. I would like to reject emphatically the outrageous insult made to Mrs Göncz by Mrs Morvai, a member of a neo-fascist party. (Applause)
| null |
Kinga Göncz
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Approval of the minutes of the previous sittingVideo of the speechesPV
|
Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I am very sorry that this discussion is being held here in the European Parliament. I would also like to respond briefly by saying that the party represented by Krisztina Morvai set up a paramilitary unit in 2006 and, since then, is using it to intimidate the peaceful public majority. This includes, in particular, minorities, gays, Roma and Jews. This paramilitary unit was recently disbanded by the courts, but an MEP from this party wore the uniform of this organisation in this chamber during the July session. In Hungary, this party conducted a campaign full of anti-European, racist, homophobic, anti-Roma and xenophobic diatribes and regularly described Hungary as a colony of the European Union in its utterances. The event which Krisztina Morvai spoke about took place in 2006 when these extreme right-wing protesters set the Hungarian television broadcasting corporation’s central building on fire and ran riot for days, resulting in 113 police officers being injured. They ran riot again on 23 October. They tried, in fact, to disrupt a national ceremony using violence. This was the first time in the country’s history, since the change of regime, that the police had had any experience of dealing with extreme right-wing protests. After this, the government set up an independent committee, whose reports are available on a wide range of websites, including in English. This committee made suggestions and numerous court proceedings were also initiated. Hungarian government bodies investigated these abuses. There were indeed problems. However, I would like to say to Krisztina Morvai that if she is calling the institutional system in her own country dictatorial, the problem with this is that if democracy was not really working in Hungary, she would not have been able to make her speech in this Chamber just now. I apologise again that this subject was raised before Parliament and I sincerely hope that this discussion will not be continued here.
| null |
Zoltán Balczó
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Approval of the minutes of the previous sittingVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, according to the Rules of Procedure, I have half a minute to ask a question. This question is addressed to Mr Schulz. Based on the slanderous statements made here by his colleague, how can he dare call a party fascist in this Chamber, simply because it does not agree with every aspect of the European Union’s main thrust? This party received 430 000 votes in Hungary. You are therefore calling 430 000 voters fascist. From now on, think before you speak!
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The next item is the comments of the Council and the Commission on the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, to be held on 24-25 September 2009.
| null |
Cecilia Malmström
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it is a great pleasure for me to be here today representing the Swedish Presidency. The Presidency and the Commission will jointly represent the EU at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh on 24-25 September. We will hold an informal European Council in Brussels tomorrow to prepare the EU’s common position. As you will all be aware, the global financial crisis has necessitated unprecedented global measures: Firstly, rapid and forceful financial and monetary policy measures to support the financial sector and the real economy. Secondly, coordination of global efforts and development of the role of the G20 as a forum for such coordination, including for measures concerning regulation of the financial markets. The financial and monetary policy measures that were able to be taken quickly were entirely necessary to get us through the worst of the crisis. The overall support to the EU economy this year and next year is estimated at 5% of GDP. The central banks have responded to the crisis by keeping interest rates close to zero. Today we are cautiously optimistic that the worst is behind us as far as the acute problems of the financial sector are concerned, but the economic situation remains unstable and there is a considerable risk of further setbacks. We are very aware that rising unemployment will be a very dominant issue in the time ahead. The situation remains uncertain, but it could have been much worse. Coordination and cooperation at international level will be incredibly important if we are to ensure a broad recovery and to set the tone for a return to long-term, sustainable growth based on a firm foundation. The G20 has played, and will continue to play, a central part in this. The G20 will also work with the international financial institutions of the IMF and the World Bank to guarantee that they have sufficient resources and a well-functioning internal organisation so as to be able to support economic growth and ensure financial stability throughout the world. The G20 process has had the following significant results: Firstly, that we have a common analysis of the problems that have affected our economies. That may not sound like great progress, but a shared view of the financial sector and the real economic problems that lie behind the crisis is essential for effective countermeasures. Secondly, we have made real progress with a number of specific measures that we agreed on in London at the spring summit. These include a comprehensive stimulus package for our economies and a strengthening of cooperation on the supervision and regulation of the financial markets. Furthermore, we have ensured that the International Monetary Fund has sufficient resources to meet demand for borrowing. We have also undertaken to improve the ability of the international financial institutions to give warning in good time should similar problems arise in the future. Much remains to be done, but we have made clear progress that has been driven forward by coordinated international commitments. I feel that we in the EU, along with the other members of the G20, have made great progress on a number of central issues that are crucial if we are to provide a strategic response to the economic and financial crisis. Our coordinated EU strategy means that Europe is leading the debate, rather than following it. It is our solutions that are being noted when global solutions are drawn up. That is why the Presidency is inviting the Heads of State or Government to a dinner tomorrow evening. The aim is to build further on the successful work of the informal Ecofin lunch and the meeting of G20 finance ministers in London, so that we will be well prepared on arrival in Pittsburgh. I expect the meeting tomorrow and the summit in Pittsburgh to continue to result in progress on the main issues that I have mentioned, but also in a few other areas besides. One issue that has been raised in strong terms by a number of European finance ministers is the question of the part played by bonus systems in financial stability. EU finance ministers are unanimous that we should lead demands for effective global standards to ensure that such bonus systems do not have destabilising effects and that the bonus payments are reasonable in relation to performance. This is an important part of the overall initiative to ensure greater transparency and better supervision of the financial sector and it is crucial if we are to be able to secure future stability. The Financial Stability Board has been asked to report to the Pittsburgh Summit regarding its work on developing principles for bonus systems. I hope that this report will contain specific strategies that can be implemented in practice and which guarantee the introduction by financial institutions of sensible, responsible remuneration and bonus structures. Moreover, I hope that we can agree to continue to provide the necessary stimulus to our economies as long as it is needed, but it is also important that we undertake to remove the measures when they are no longer required so that we can return to balanced public finances when the recovery comes. We have only just begun to reflect on these exit strategies. Their form and coordination, and how they are implemented, will be a highly important component if we are to achieve a balanced, long-term economic recovery. Employment is another major challenge. We need to carefully design the measures required, while at the same time maintaining a good balance between financial and structural policy. I am sure that we will also repeat the need to maintain a stand against protectionism and to ensure fair play on the global markets. This will require significant coordination of financial regulation and supervision, but also as regards the removal of extraordinary measures taken to support the financial sector. Extensive work will continue to be required both at national and EU level. Discussions concerning reform of financial institutions will continue tomorrow and in Pittsburgh, but also during the rest of the year. We want them to be strong, with sufficient resources, the right mandate, with political guidance and management structures that correctly reflect their composition. These matters are complex and interlinked, but we must get to grips with them as a matter of urgency so that the financial institutions can do this work which is becoming increasingly important. Finally, I would like to say that naturally there is a great need for political decisiveness if we are to make progress in the discussions ahead of the climate summit in Copenhagen. This is a very high priority for the Swedish Presidency. We want to ensure that the right incentives are in place for everyone to take action to limit global warming and to adapt economic strategies so as to favour climate-friendly development. Our goal is for the Pittsburgh Summit to make progress on guidelines for financing global climate measures. I cannot promise that we will achieve everything we want to, because these issues are highly complex, but we promise that the Presidency will assert and defend the EU’s views in a responsible manner. In this spirit I look forward to fruitful discussions with the Heads of State or Government tomorrow evening and the real results that the world is expecting from Pittsburgh next week. (Applause)
| null |
Joaquín Almunia
|
EU Commissioner
|
N/A
|
en
|
es
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Mrs Malmström, ladies and gentlemen, this is my first time before the House in this new legislative term. I want to start by congratulating all of you on your election, or re-election in many cases. I am sure that we all share a sense of responsibility with regard to tackling one of the greatest political challenges of our generation: how to overcome this deep economic and financial crisis. We have to restore confidence and stability for our citizens, while increasing their opportunities and ensuring the highest possible level of social cohesion for everyone. The issue that will be on the table at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh next week is at the heart of this challenge and this concern. I am convinced that this issue will keep coming up throughout the next period and throughout this Parliament’s legislative term, regardless of whether these issues are discussed at G20 summits or European Councils, in your own debates or in the proposed initiatives that the next Commission will bring before this House. The G20 Summit in Pittsburgh is the third to be convened at the level of Heads of State or Government since the collapse, one year and one day ago, of Lehman Brothers and the start of a crisis of proportions not seen for many decades. In light of the first two top-level G20 meetings in Washington last November and in London in April of this year, it is clear that the G20 is playing a decisive role in coordinating the global response to this crisis. The G20’s contribution to the development of a coordinated response has been vital in avoiding an even deeper recession than the one we are currently experiencing. It has also been vital in establishing the foundations of an economic and financial system that will, in the future, prevent a repeat of the imbalances and excesses that have led us to the current situation. The European Union has played an active and decisive role in encouraging the G20 in this respect. As recalled yesterday in this House by President Barroso, the first summit in Washington was a European initiative by the French Presidency and President Sarkozy, together with the Commission. The European Union also made a decisive contribution in terms of setting ambitious objectives for the two previous summits and actively participating in the preparatory work for these summits, in order to achieve not only declarations of principle, but also concrete results and commitments. All Europeans, as well as the European institutions, should feel satisfied about all this. We can also be reasonably satisfied about the level of coordination that has existed between the various European representatives on the G20: the European countries that are G20 members and participate in the G20 meetings as such, plus the Presidency of the European Union together with the Commission, the latter representing the voice of all Europeans and the common position of all Member States. The Washington Summit last November allowed the world’s main economies – the G20 countries account for around 90% of world GDP – to agree on the implementation of stimulus plans to support economic activity at that time, last autumn, when credit, international trade and investment came to a sudden halt as a result of the tremendous financial shock, which first occurred in August 2007 and which then gained incredible momentum in September 2008. A few days after the Washington Summit last year, the Commission proposed the European Economic Recovery Plan, which received the political support of the European Council in December. This plan has formed the basis of the European response in terms of fiscal policies and policies to stimulate demand through instruments which are in the hands of national governments and parliaments, or which are in the hands of the European institutions themselves. Based on the most recent information available, these discretionary fiscal stimuli, together with the action of the automatic stabilisers, which are very important in the European countries due to the weight of our taxes and social welfare system, are predicted to add, as a contribution to total demand, the equivalent of 5.5% of EU GDP between 2009 and 2010. The new US administration has also adopted a very significant stimulus plan. Given that its automatic stabilisers are not as extensive as ours in Europe, the total sum of direct stimuli plus automatic stabilisers means that similar support is being given on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition, countries such as Japan, China, Canada and other G20 members have also adopted equivalent fiscal stimuli. The London Summit at the beginning of April insisted, in this respect, on the need to quickly put these plans into practice. It called for close monitoring of these plans and said that, if necessary, they should be supplemented by additional measures. We can now confirm that these stimulus plans, together with the very significant monetary stimuli adopted by the central banks, plus the mobilisation of public resources in support of financial institutions, particularly the banks, have managed to halt the economy’s freefall. They are also now allowing us to see, this autumn, the first signs of stabilisation, as is apparent from the economic forecasts that I had the opportunity to present two days ago in Brussels. For the first time in two years, these forecasts have not revised the previous forecast downwards. However, we are not yet able to say that economic activity could sustain itself if these stimuli were removed. It is also true that, even with the stimuli that are being applied, there are risks of a relapse given the extremely worrying rise in unemployment and the as-yet unresolved weaknesses in the financial system. As a result, one of the messages that the G20 Finance Ministers agreed on with regard to the Pittsburgh Summit, when they met in London at the beginning of this month, was the need, for the time being, to maintain the temporary support measures, without ignoring the need to start developing a coordinated exit strategy. I will come back to this briefly at the end of my speech. The first two G20 summits in Washington and London were also decisive in terms of setting a global agenda for reforms in the systems of financial regulation and supervision. It may be said that we are witnessing a radical change in tone after nearly three decades dominated by the model of deregulation and theories on the alleged infallibility of the financial markets. In Washington, the G20 countries established the foundations, laid down the principles and defined the agenda for subjecting the financial markets to stricter and more effective regulation and supervision, leaving no areas, products or financial players outside the control of the regulatory and supervisory authorities. These authorities must cooperate and coordinate their actions with one another much more closely in order to rectify the evident ineffectiveness of national supervisory systems vis-à-vis globalised markets and financial institutions operating across borders in these markets. Extensive work was carried out at the London Summit in April to bring about concrete and significant progress in the implementation of this reform agenda. From prudential accounting rules, applicable to financial institutions, to the firm requirement for transparency in non-cooperative jurisdictions, namely tax havens, and including the regulation of hedge funds or other financial institutions, the organisation of transparent derivative markets, and the adoption of rules on the pay of senior executives of financial institutions and traders operating on the markets, the London G20 Summit took definitive steps towards fulfilling the promise of reform. As a result, the European Union has performed a very important task not only in promoting these agreements at G20 level, but also in applying these G20 agreements. This has involved intensive regulatory work over the last year. Some of these proposals have already been adopted here in this Parliament and by the Council. Others are currently being discussed in this House and by the Council and, by the end of the year, the Commission plans to adopt another series of proposals, starting next week, one day before the Pittsburgh Summit, with the proposal to create the European Systemic Risk Board and three European micro-supervisory authorities, based on the recommendations of the de Larosière report, which both the Council and the Commission have taken on board. The US administration has also revealed an ambitious financial reform plan, which President Obama confirmed this week as a priority of his term of office. He has recognised the responsibility of the United States as being the place where this crisis was born and developed. The objectives set for the Pittsburgh Summit include checking on the positive progress of these reforms and ensuring the necessary regulatory convergence on both sides of the Atlantic. Any regulatory divergence will or could be used in the future by investors for arbitration strategies, which could once again create major distortions in the markets. However, in addition to ensuring compliance with what has already been agreed and encouraging the implementation of the measures adopted, the Pittsburgh Summit must send out a clear political message. The absolute desire of governments, political leaders, institutions, our own countries and the European Union to establish a solid regulatory framework with a firm commitment and dissuasive message must now be made clear. This message must say that ‘no one should think that, having got over the worst part of this crisis, those former practices which led to the crisis can be allowed to redevelop, as if nothing had happened’. The public expect guarantees that the financial institutions and their executives will be required to comply with rules, particularly on pay, which will prevent them from once again endangering the financial system and the real economy as a whole. It must be said that the European Union is totally united on this point. Another issue that has been high up on the agenda of the various G20 summits is the reform of the international financial institutions, as already mentioned by Mrs Malmström. The only point I wish to add is that an extremely important step forward was taken in London in terms of the financial capacity of these institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Its lending capacity has been increased by no less than USD 500 billion, as a result of which the total funds now available to the IMF for its operations are USD 750 billion. In addition to that, it was agreed to distribute between all the IMF’s member countries, in proportion to their quota, special drawing rights amounting to USD 250 billion. On top of that, it was also agreed to increase the IMF’s financial capacity in order to boost its concessionary loans to the poorest countries. All that is already in hand. A great deal more progress has been made in the space of six months than over many years before that. As a result, the European Union has, of course, agreed to duly contribute to this increase in the IMF’s funds. The Member States of the European Union have agreed to add EUR 125 billion to their usual contributions, in proportion to the financing of the new objectives. The G20 leaders will also discuss changing the representation of the various countries on the governing bodies of the international financial institutions. Emerging and developing countries quite rightly aspire to a more appropriate representation. This is an aspiration that the European Union supports, but it must be translated into concrete agreements. That is why the European Commission – although this is not the official position of the Presidency of the European Union – continues to say that, in line with what this Parliament has thought to date, the best representation for the European Union on these bodies is a single representation. The Pittsburgh Summit agenda will also cover other issues: financing of climate change, in preparation for the Copenhagen Summit; the need to resume international trade negotiations and not to give in to protectionist tendencies; and increased support for the weakest and most vulnerable countries in tackling this crisis. As you know, the Commission adopted a communication on the financing of climate change last week. Finally, please allow me to conclude by mentioning the wish expressed at the last meeting of the G20 Finance Ministers, and which will be discussed at the Pittsburgh Summit: the need to establish the foundations of a future model of more balanced and sustainable growth. This will firstly involve developing exit strategies, not to be applied immediately, but to be applied when appropriate and in a coordinated manner. This is because the development of such strategies is not only key to a sustainable exit from this crisis, but also to offering, at the same time, a prospect of medium-to-long-term sustainability following the profound effect that the crisis has had on public finances, on levels of employment and on the capacity for growth of our economies.
| null |
Corien Wortmann-Kool
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Minister Malmström, Commissioner Almunia, we are in a global crisis. We have a financial sector that operates on a global basis and we therefore need, as far as possible, to agree binding rules for the sector on a global basis. That is why the G20 in Pittsburgh is so important, though the European Union itself should, of course, take vigorous action. Efforts must be focussed on restoring the balance between freedom and responsibility, the values that form the basis of our social market economy, the core of our electoral platform in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). Mr President, the G20 Summit is an important summit where it is more than vision that will be needed – I am happy that you have said so too. It is a summit where decisions have to be taken. This relates to structural reformation in risk management, more transparency and better rules for financial supervision. Commissioner Almunia, you said that there are proposals in place for hedge funds. What do you hope to achieve in this regard at the G20 Summit? A rapid reform of the IMF and the World Bank is also very much needed, and – I am pleased that you have both said this too – there must be timely work on a coordinated exit strategy, or new problems will arise once again. Mr President, it is of the greatest importance that the flawed bonus culture be tackled with binding rules, as bonuses that reward short-term profits pose a great risk to the stability of financial institutions. That is not all, however, as there is rightly a great deal of public indignation and, for that reason, too, it is very important that we show ourselves to be decisive in this regard. Mr President, the summit will only be a success if binding agreements are reached. I have talked about financial regulation, but climate change, preparing for a successful Copenhagen Summit and fighting protectionism in the interests of jobs are, of course, very important issues. You, the European Union, all of us together, must play a pioneering role in this regard, and it is therefore important that you get the Member States to pull together.
| null |
Udo Bullmann
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first and foremost, there can be no ‘as you were’ in the current economic situation. That will only allow us to make a slow recovery and we shall see a further dramatic increase in unemployment figures, including here in Europe. You must therefore be bold. That is the most important message this Parliament can give the Pittsburgh delegates. Be bold! Mr Almunia, I have listened to a refreshing speech from you, on which I should like to congratulate you. Now you need to start putting it into practice. It is good to start with the bonus systems, but it is not enough. We need a gear shift wherever short-term speculators are at an advantage on the international financial market, because the rules are wrong, over those who wish to make long-term investments in jobs, in products of excellence and in the long-term success of their company. It is right to say that no risky players, no risky financial centre can remain without reasonable regulation, which is why we need regulation of the offshore centres from which dubious products are flooding the entire world. That is the most important task that we must now set ourselves. Nor should you be frightened of discussing fiscal policy – it is not prohibited. A global transaction tax which benefits long-term investors would take us forward in this discussion as a whole. We need strong, improved coordination of our international, as well as our European, economic policy. It is right to think about an exit strategy, but it is even more important at the moment that we work out how we can give more solid support to the economy and improve the coordination of our economic policy.
| null |
Sylvie Goulard
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, we clearly appreciate all the efforts that you have mentioned and which have, in fact, already gone quite far, but we want more. We want a number of the G20’s elements and commitments to be formalised. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to the gap between the rather encouraging figures in the financial sector and the terrible unemployment figures in the European Union. If we have long-term unemployment, we will have, firstly, a human tragedy, and also a burden on public finance and no hope of a recovery through consumption. We, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, very much fear a Japanese scenario and a sort of sluggish growth for several years. I think that your country, Mrs Malmström, Sweden, has unfortunately also had experience of this. Please help us to take advantage of this experience. For me, there are three essential tasks. Firstly, we have to carry on cooperating internationally, and carry on fighting against protectionism and strengthening global institutions such as the IMF. We cannot get out of this on our own. Europe must hammer home this message tirelessly. Secondly, we must successfully put in place effective supervision and a much more demanding form of bank stabilisation. In this respect, we should be wary of the G20’s publicity stunts. There are executive powers, but there is work to be done at a legislative level and, for us, Mr Almunia, the Commission’s proposals on supervision are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough. Ultimately, we want more European entities. Then I think we will have to consider joint strategies for exiting the crisis while preserving the euro, making sure that the deficits do not place a strain on common monetary discipline. To conclude, I would like to thank Commissioner Almunia for saying that he was in favour of the European Union as a body adopting positions in international institutions, thus defending the Community method. We are counting on you to make sure that it is not only the large States that make their voices heard, but that the whole of the European Union and the whole of the internal market are defended.
| null |
Sven Giegold
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his speech. I have several concerns. The first is that the Committee on Development in this House drafted a motion for a resolution. I quote from that. It ‘notes with great concern that the crisis already bears major human costs, and has devastating effects for the vulnerable in the poorest countries with an expected increase of 23 million more unemployed, up to 90 million more extreme poor in 2009 alone, life-saving drug treatment for up to 1.7 million people under threat, and 200 000-400 000 more infant deaths per year on average between 2009 and 2015’. Unfortunately, this motion was not passed, although it was written together by all groups of this House. We strongly deplore and we think it is a shame that this House was not able to draft a resolution on the G20 on development issues. The big question is how to finance the consequences of the crisis, and there the German Minister of Finance, together with the Chancellor, suggested that the G20 discuss the possibility of a global transaction tax. I ask the Commission, and I also ask the Presidency of the Council. Do you support this proposal? The second question is about tax havens. The G20 wants to tackle it on the basis of case-by-case information exchange. We know that this will not work. The Development Committee suggested a country-by-country reporting regime so that transnational corporations have to report back on a country-by-country basis. We suggest introducing automatic information exchange so that information really flows between the different countries. A global financial system needs transparency. We also want to know your position on these concrete proposals to get out of the crisis and finance the consequences.
| null |
Kay Swinburne
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, thank you for the speeches we have had this morning. I was particularly pleased to hear Mrs Malmström’s comments about the G20 Pittsburgh representatives needing to agree to significant coordination in the continued support of stimulus measures, in the unwinding of these support measures when appropriate, and a determined coordinated effort on future regulation. However, the backdrop to this summit is nations spending trillions of dollars on bailouts and stimulus packages and in two of the largest world economies we are seeing some protectionist measures, particularly with regard to tyres and poultry, as well as two of the most complicated regulatory structures in the world, namely the EU and the US, looking to completely overhaul their financial systems. Therefore, I hope that the important issues of how to coordinate financial services, particularly now that some countries are showing early signs of coming out of this period of negative growth, will be the main topic of discussion and not the distraction of controlling bankers’ bonuses. This summit should focus on how we achieve a common regulatory framework in a common timescale so that we do not create an opportunity for competitive advantage by individual nations or regulatory arbitrage opportunity for speculative trading. There will be no first-mover advantage in financial regulation. A global, coordinated approach is the only one which would benefit the businesses looking to raise funds in Wales, the EU and beyond. If my Welsh businesses cannot access funds from the US, if the banks they rely on will require so much capital that the taxpayers of the EU need to take even more risk, we will not be thanked for moving first on overly burdensome regulation. My plea is that a global, coordinated approach is adopted at all times and maintained to ensure the future access to capital for all our businesses in Wales, the EU and beyond.
| null |
Miguel Portas
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
In Portugal, bank profits grew by 18% in the first quarter of this year. The only thing that rose more than bank profits was unemployment. Portugal is not an exception, but an example of an unfulfilled promise made by the G20, which was that we would resolve this crisis with a new economic and world order. That is not true, and 50 million more people out of work and 200 million more people in poverty prove that it is not so. That is why I call on the Commission and Mrs Malmström to deal with bonuses and hedge funds, certainly, but most of all to deal with what we have not mentioned here: the end of off-shore banking, tax havens, the tax on financial transactions and the end of banking secrecy. They should do anything that can be seen if they want people to believe in them.
| null |
Mario Borghezio
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, how can the people have faith in financial market regulation when it is entrusted to the high priests of the global financial temples such as Mario Draghi? In the United States, a popular uprising, a new conservative revolution of the people against the financial oligarchies, is taking place. We the people do not believe in making taxpayers fund policies to rescue the financial powers, whether in the United States or in Europe. Rather, European governments should give adequate resources to the real economy; they should worry about production and jobs. We can see the results of the G20: they include nothing about ceilings and bonuses, nothing about the elimination of tax havens! The measures are instead aimed solely at rescuing those responsible for the financial bubble: EUR 23 trillion have already been spent, EUR 5 trillion of which were spent by the European Central Bank. The money in our economy has been gifted to those responsible for the financial bubble. In comparison with the EUR 850 billion given to the banks, only EUR 50 billion has been earmarked for welfare support provisions and production incentives. The reality is that high finance gives the orders and politics obeys them. In the United States as in Europe, politicians appear merely as servants of the global banking power. Wake up, Europe! Follow the example of the US population, which is starting a second major revolution: the conservative people’s revolution!
| null |
Hans-Peter Martin
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, we need democratic revolution. That is clear from this process, which has luckily gained momentum with what is presently the G20, because more may join; one could even imagine a G3. How would it be if the Council helped in establishing a democratic control mechanism, especially given its tradition of consensus? It need not be a world parliament straight away, but what is being promoted needs democratic scrutiny by elected parliamentarians within a far bigger forum than the European Parliament. I should also like to specifically point out that the question of systemic risks must be approached at its core. With reference in particular to the tiresome situation we keep finding ourselves in, starting back in 1998, with LTCM, Hypo Real Estate and, of course, Lehman, and the knock-on effects, rules should emerge from this that make it impossible to end up with the basic problem of ‘too big to fail’. This can, of course, be done through cartel legislation, but it is certainly also a fundamental global question. As far as a global transaction tax is concerned, the Tobin tax group was set up here in the European Parliament back in 1999. It is good that there has been progress here. As far as the supervisory package is concerned, we urgently need to act on a European scale and not to allow ourselves to be held back by those who want the wrong Europe.
| null |
Othmar Karas
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the statistics are improving. However, the multiple causes of the crisis – and it is not just a question of loopholes in regulations – are far from being removed. For that, political will, decisiveness and courage must not fail us; on the contrary. Today we are talking about the G20. It is a good process. We need new or different structures, priorities and bases for valuation in order to build up a global economy and a financial, social and judicial order in the world. There are three conditions for this: firstly, we need to develop a democratic, parliamentary legitimisation process; secondly, we need more EU in Europe and more Europe in the world, which also means that the values of our Charter of Fundamental Rights are our export articles, that our model of a responsible eco-social market economy is the basis for our global order and, thirdly, European regulation is needed in areas in which no agreement is in sight within the framework of the G20. We say yes to integrated European rather than simply coordinated financial market supervision on the basis of the model of the European Central Bank. The de Larosière report is too little. We say yes to the debate on bonus payments, but changing the payment methods is not the right way to go about it. We must change the basis for assessment and, wherever there is a bonus, it must also have a penalty component. As far as I am concerned, the debate on pro-cyclicity is too brief at the moment. We need to remove the procyclic effects of the crisis and the current regulations for 2009 and 2010. The political will must not fail us. That is why, following the speeches of the President-in-Office of the Council and the Commissioner, we are going to Pittsburgh with optimism.
| null |
Pervenche Berès
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, one year on from the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the position that the European Union adopts at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh is absolutely critical if we want to prevent a repeat of past events and want the dynamic of change to remain at the top of the agenda. I have four observations on this matter. Firstly, at the G20 Summit in London last April, the Heads of State or Government made a commitment to increase the IMF’s funds. Very well. We have seen that there was significant support to fulfil this objective. I fear that behind this there has been less determination to play a part in the much-needed reform of the governance of the IMF. My second observation is that we must not fall for gimmicks. I would not like the omnipresent debate on the bonuses and salaries of both CEOs and traders – which is absolutely critical if we want to develop the system into one which focuses less on the short term and more on long-term investment – to overshadow what is an equally important campaign concerning the eradication of tax havens, which was the highlight of the London Summit. My third observation – and this picks up on what Mr Bullmann said earlier – is that this is an historic moment for us to raise the question again of the banks’ contribution to financing the aftershocks of the crisis. This will enable us to reopen the debate on the taxation of transactions, which itself must also allow funds to be made available for long-term investment. Once again, given the way the banks have been supported and assisted to cope with this crisis, the only right, proper and effective course of action is for them to contribute today to the financing of the economy. My final observation is that, when we look at the employment picture, I think that from the start, our G20 meetings have fallen short when it comes to tackling the macroeconomic question, the question of a global pact for employment, and the question of a return to a strategy which, tomorrow, will enable us to correct the global imbalances that caused this crisis.
| null |
Wolf Klinz
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the fast and decisive reaction of the G20 to the global financial crisis. A great deal has happened. The fire appears to have been put out, but the foundations of our financial system are still shaky. The citizens are unsettled. Profits are being ploughed back for the benefit of shareholders and losses are being socialised, that is how the citizens see it. In the meantime, it is back to business as usual for more and more market players, who are making big moves, rather than focusing on what they should really be doing as service providers, namely supporting the real economy. Financial ethics and responsibility appear, as ever, to be foreign words to many of them. I am expecting specific – and fast – measures from the G20. I hope that the EU Member States will all pull together. In addition to new supervisory structures, we also need bigger equity bases, which increase in line with the risk, long-term – not short-term – incentive systems, a coordinated exit strategy from State aid, contained protectionism, congruent regulation, rather than regulation arbitrage, an end to pro-cyclicity and a solution to the ‘too big to fail’ problem and, above all, we must abide by the tried and tested social market economy.
| null |
Cornelis de Jong
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, so far the G20 has concentrated on measures for the financial sector. However, everyone seems to forget that the real economy also suffers from greed and an obsession with short-term profits. I have deep respect for small enterprises which, against all odds, try to survive. They deserve to get the loans to which they are entitled. However, I have no respect at all for the management of some of the bigger companies which have no affinity with the products or services they deliver and can only think in terms of expansion and speculation. I therefore call upon the G20 to discuss ways of making the economy more democratic and how to make sure that, within the company, workers and others who represent the general interest have enough power to control the management. Within the EU, we have to look again at the statute for a European company. We should make sure that it becomes impossible for shareholders and management to engage in speculative growth strategies to the detriment of the long-term interest of the companies themselves and of those who work for these companies.
| null |
Krisztina Morvai
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the majority of Europeans are not corporate leaders and not bankers but family farmers, small entrepreneurs, state employees. The majority of Europe is completely fed up with the present system, in which global multinational corporations and banks rule the world. They need, and they want, a fundamentally new paradigm, in which there must be a shift from globalisation to localisation, from completely profit- and money-centred decision making to human-centred and community-centred decision making, from WTO-ruled free trade agriculture to food sovereignty, local production and local farming. Please do not fail to represent at the G20 Summit the views of the majority of Europe.
| null |
Werner Langen
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, who should regulate whom and how? That will be one of the controversial questions at the G20 Summit. Even if there is unanimity on the fact that there can be no return to unbridled developments on the financial market, the methods and extent of regulation are still the subject of fierce argument. It will still be possible to reach agreement on equity rules, on rating agencies, possibly even on questions in connection with derivates and their licensing, but there will be argument on the question of unfair competition, taxes and control. There will be arguments over bonuses and there will be arguments over Europe’s demand for a Tobin tax. In other words, as Europeans we have a responsibility to do our own homework, regardless of the outcome of the G20 Summit and the Commission is on the right path by not relying solely on it. The motto must be: no financial market players, no financial products and no financial centre with no supervision in future. However, global economic recovery is also on the agenda. We cannot carry on here as in the past and maintain the imbalances in the world for the benefit of the US and for the benefit of the large industrial countries. We must devote ourselves to overcoming poverty and hunger in the world and the G20 Summit must give new momentum to this. I should like to add one point that no one, with the exception of Commissioner Almunia, has addressed so far. It will be necessary to abide by the Stability and Growth Pact in Europe, not to bury it. It is only because we had this pact, because we revised and maintained it, that it was at all possible for Europe to remain capable of action. This should remain a European objective: a fast exit strategy out of excessive debt into a stable economy, to the Stability and Growth Pact as we know it.
| null |
Edward Scicluna
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
mt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, currently, one of the most popular topics, at least on the news tied to the G20 Summit, is that of bonuses. It is evidently a much talked about issue, yet we have to understand that the actual problem is rather more complex. What has to be said is that if these bonuses are to put the financial system at risk then, undoubtedly, they must be checked. However, we must keep in mind that there were large deficits in the external trade between countries that led to this crisis, as well as other internal fiscal deficits. We must also take employment into consideration. We know that the employment lag approximately requires about a year or so to catch up with the impact of previous GDP performance. Therefore, when analysing employment issues, fiscal stimulus packages that are applied must keep being applied until positive results begin to emerge. The Commission should ensure that there are no inconsistencies and should require that a reduction in deficit be registered before doing so.
| null |
Kyriacos Triantaphyllides
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
el
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the G20 Summit, the main topic at which was bonus management, does not by any stretch of the imagination get to the root of the problem and, unfortunately, is not a step towards improving the present system. The series of proposals to amend the regulations is confined to an analysis of superficial issues and does not focus on social objectives. The objective should be a total overhaul of the financial system and public and social control, a more democratic summit which would include all states and would address issues such as increased unemployment and the spiralling cost of basic goods and fuel, a summit which would take fundamental decisions to intervene in the market in order to put a stop to continual privatisation and the destruction of the social state. These are the people’s real needs. Citizens today want overall structural change, far from a neo-liberal system which leads to under-development instead of development, far from the rampant speculation which works against the people’s interests.
| null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.