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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jean-Paul Gauzès
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome your determination. Europe has begun to put in place effective regulation, but Europe must not find itself isolated. Close international cooperation is necessary, and this is exactly what we expect of the G20. It must pursue the reforms, which were initiated at previous meetings, with rigour and vigour. The international framework for regulating the financial sector must be completed, so that it can aid investment, growth and employment. Guiding principles must be affirmed. The crisis is not over. We must not return to the situation ex ante and abandon measures needed to avoid, as far as possible, the renewal of crises which are particularly damaging to the real economy, growth and employment. The strengthening of supervision and regulation is equally necessary. The obligations for supervision should reflect the level of systematic risk that the financial institutions impose on this sector. Speculative activities, which represent a significant risk, should be discouraged by increasing the capital requirements and applying the Basel rules internationally. As for salaries in the financial sector, we should recommend pay committees, increase transparency of these salaries with stricter disclosure requirements and supervise variable salaries, notably bonuses. The strengthening of global financial institutions is likewise an imperative, as is the reform of governance and representation at the IMF. Commissioner, these are some of the expectations citizens have of the next G20, where Europe must speak with one voice, with determination and conviction.
| null |
Alejandro Cercas
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
es
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Commissioner Almunia, Mrs Malmström, I would ask you not to forget in Pittsburgh that we are experiencing not only a financial and economic crisis of unprecedented dimensions, but also a huge social crisis with devastating effects on those most in need, on those who only have their job, on small entrepreneurs, and on the most disadvantaged regions and countries. I hope it is made clear in Pittsburgh that the economy is important, but that people are more important and that the economy serves the people. Furthermore, Commissioner, Minister, please do not forget in Pittsburgh that Europe exists. Please make your voices heard above those of the three tenors. I have here the letter of 3 September from the three European Prime Ministers. There is not one word on Europe. They say that it is important that Europe speaks with one voice, but they keep drowning out Europe’s voice. You must speak louder than them. You must make clear that Europe has a right and an obligation, and that our vision of the social market economy is the solution to this crisis, and to preventing its reoccurrence.
| null |
José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
es
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Ladies and gentlemen, I agree with many of the points that have been made, but must qualify some others. I agree that it is too soon to take away the patient’s crutches, but that it is time to get him ready to walk without them. We still have to absorb excess liquidity in the markets, correct the imbalance in public finances and re-establish respect for competition rules. In Pittsburgh we must do several things that we cannot do alone: we have to set up early warning mechanisms that work, because those that we had did not work; we have to revise the regulatory framework, because the existing framework has not worked. I agree that it is important to regulate bonuses and tax havens. These are all necessary, but inadequate, measures. In my opinion, it is more important to re-build the muscle of financial institutions, limit debt and set up reserves in good times so that we can weather the bad times. It is more important to make an effort in terms of supervision. The Commissioner knows that I supported the de Larosière report, although I felt it was inadequate, because I would support more centralised supervision. However, it is clear that European supervision cannot function without close coordination with the supervisory authorities of the other major economic areas of the world. We also need to do something about trade. It is all well and good helping the emerging countries, but it is more important to lift the barriers that are still preventing trade in goods. Commissioner, the most important point is that we need to establish the foundations for stable and sustained growth over a generation. For this we need free markets, markets open to innovation, markets open to entrepreneurs, but also markets subject to a certain level of regulation. I will end with a quotation, which will be familiar to my compatriot Mr Almunia: ‘Publish not many edicts; when you do enact pragmatics and decrees, see that they be good ones and, above all, that they are well observed’, so said Don Quixote to his friend Sancho.
| null |
Peter Skinner
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
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. I especially agree with him on his Charter for Sustainable Economic Activity. I think this is what we must take to the G20 but I do not agree that we should use all our capital to focus on bankers’ bonuses. I think this is a distraction in many ways although it should be dealt with. Neither is a wish list for solving the world’s problems frankly likely to win the day. The financial services industry is on fire. We need first to make sure that we have put out that fire and that it stays out. For this we need a consistent approach. The G20 is a leading forum, but we also need permanent structures in place as well like the Transatlantic Economic Council to deal with issues like IFRS. If systemic risk is to be truly dealt with, we need to stop looking in the rear-view mirror and start focusing on the road ahead.
| null |
Kader Arif
|
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, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis that we are going through is profound and long lasting. It is therefore urgent and absolutely essential to put in place the necessary regulations and supervision of the financial sector and the banks, to prevent an even more drastic repeat of today’s crisis. The financial system must once again serve the real economy and not continue to destroy it. From this point of view, the last G20 Summit in London, which has been mentioned, ended in what were, to say the least, partial proposals, but, above all, the words have not been turned into deeds, and the financial drift is there once again. In view of this situation, and so that the Pittsburgh G20 Summit really is useful, the European Union must defend strong regulatory measures that have real consequences. Beyond the essential measures to supervise finance listed by a number of my fellow Members, I personally would like to raise the issues of trade and development, because in Pittsburgh there will also be talk of relaunching the Doha Round. Relaunch it, yes, but with the condition that the initial and central objective of this Round, that is to say development, is not sidelined again. Our southern partners, quite rightly, will not accept that their concerns continue to remain unanswered. The issue at stake in this G20 goes beyond that of the financial crisis: it is about laying the foundations of new global governance.
| null |
Ramon Jauregui Atondo
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
es
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mrs Malmström, Mr Almunia, I will give you three ideas in one minute. Firstly, we need more Europe. This is because, given the global situation, Europe must be united and strong. If we fail to achieve this, Europe will not count and will not be involved. Secondly, we need more State. This is because, in addition to developing a new governance for the world, in addition to new regulation and supervision, and also greater international coordination, we need to put an end to tax havens and review transnational taxation. This, in my opinion, is an urgent issue for the future. Finally, we need a better market. I feel it is vital to reiterate the need for new business ethics and also the need to encourage a new culture of corporate responsibility. I believe this is essential. Companies must become part of society and, as such, must be held liable to these interest groups and to these stakeholders.
| null |
Rachida Dati
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Minister, Mr Almunia, first of all, on 3 September, Germany, the United Kingdom and France reached an agreement, spoke with one voice to express a European consensus on the matter of the supervision of traders’ bonuses. On Thursday, the 27 members of the Council will meet to prepare for the G20. I encourage you to work actively to find a solution, a common response, but one that is especially ambitious as regards the matter of traders’ salaries. Indeed, the rules enacted and the decisions taken at the last G20, in April, have not been respected, as the banks, which had also received State aid, swiftly set aside sums to pay traders. European citizens cannot and would not understand why such breaches have not been punished, when measures were taken at the time of the G20 Summit. When it is a matter of State aid, breaches absolutely must be punished. It is therefore essential that concrete and, above all, joint measures be adopted at Pittsburgh. We cannot be the only virtuous ones. In short, salaries must be better supervised through rules of transparency, governance and responsibility, and penalties must be applied where these rules are breached.
| null |
Monika Flašíková Beňová
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
sk
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
In my opinion, what you have presented here is a rather ambitious plan, which you want to present to the G20. I am concerned, however, as to what the conclusions of the G20 will be and what the real effects will be on society, since the results that have filtered through at the level of EU Member States are so far neither tangible nor visible. Mrs Malmström was saying that the issue is one of proportionate levels of pay for managers, but it must be said that all of the data indicates that it is precisely in those sectors which we supported financially and which we protected from ruin that managers receive disproportionate levels of pay. In addition, nothing has happened with offshore banking - the mechanism has simply not been brought into play. All of this leads to mounting unemployment and problems for small and medium-sized enterprises and, in my opinion, we should perhaps focus on fewer issues in the future while ensuring that those issues we do focus on are implemented in full.
| null |
Pascal Canfin
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, you spoke of the governance of the IMF. I would also like to know if you intend to raise the issue, at the G20, of the conditionality of the money that the IMF lends to states. We have seen that what were previously very liberal conditions have not been changed, and this applies in particular to the loans that were granted to some European States. What is your position on this? My second question is: what is the position of the Commission and the Council on the Chinese proposal to put in place a slightly different international currency, in an effort to regulate the financial system using an alternative to the dollar? My third question is: the G20 is also part of the preparations for Copenhagen. The Commission has proposed a total sum of between EUR 2 and 15 billion to help the countries of the South adapt to climate change. What is the Council’s position? What sum will you put on the table at the G20 next week?
| null |
Vicky Ford
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the G20 came up with many sensible responses: the need to rewrite financial regulation and supervision, and the need to act in a coordinated fashion. Our national politicians are saying one thing, but here in the EU we seem to be doing another. The detail of the regulation that is already being considered by some of my colleagues shows divergence both in the timetable of implementation and in the detail of the regulation. Our economies are still very fragile. Unemployment is rising, and access to finance is a huge concern, especially for small and medium-sized businesses. Do we want our British or European businesses to be at a competitive disadvantage when they need working capital? Do we want to make it so expensive to borrow from a European bank that our customers, our corporates, just go and borrow from Wall Street and end up handing another coup to Wall Street at the expense of European banks? (The President cut off the speaker)
| null |
Enikő Győri
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to approach this subject from one of the perversities of the crisis. Hungary’s citizens were shocked that, while the country is currently subsisting on aid from the IMF and EU, following seven years of socialist government, Hungarian banks’ half-year profits reached two-thirds of their pre-crisis level. The banks are also able to amend unilaterally their agreements, thereby putting in a vulnerable position citizens who have taken out foreign currency loans in the hope of buying their own flat. I firmly believe that we must take action against such trends. We should subject the banks and other financial market operators to proper supervision. We should prevent the continuation of the damaging bonus culture prevalent before the crisis. We should set in stone rules of professional ethics because we have seen where we end up with excessive deregulation. Let us create a world which gives rewards, not for making a quick, short-term profit and immoderation, but for proper work, and which regards social responsibility as a basic value. We must work together on sensible rules to win over our G20 partners.
| null |
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
There is a clear message from what has been said so far, namely, that in order to regain the trust of ordinary citizens, we must take action against bonuses and tax havens. I would like to ask Commissioner Almunia and Mrs Malmström about when the European financial supervisory authority proposed by the Hungarian Prime Minister will come into operation. I would also like to point out that it would be an extremely important task for this Parliament, nothing to do with G20, to protect the interests of European consumers and citizens. They are completely at the mercy of the banks, which do not provide sufficient reliable information. A code of ethics has been drawn up in Hungary. I would suggest a code of ethics in Europe at EU level, governing the behaviour of citizens and banks, because I strongly believe that there are a huge number of innocent victims as ordinary citizens do not understand the risk entailed when obtaining credit. This is an extremely important task for Europe.
| null |
Corinne Lepage
|
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, the very ambitious programme you have presented to us is interesting, but do you not think that we ought to tackle the issue of the advantage that is still to be gained, today, by favouring very short-term transactions and very short-term profitability over the medium and long term? The lack of funding for our businesses, particularly in Europe, is precisely due to the advantage that is still to be gained by very short-term investments. Do you not think we should tackle this issue?
| 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, I would like to thank all the Members who have contributed to this debate. I feel there is a very high level of agreement in this House about what is important in the European position and which issues we must concentrate on ahead of the G20. The EU now speaks with a clear, coordinated voice on the international stage and I really would like to thank the Commission and, in particular, Joaquín Almunia, for the work that he has done to help bring about this consensus. Many Members have raised the issues that both I and the Commissioner have looked at. Yes, we need better supervision and better regulation of the financial markets. We hope that a supervisory system can be put in place as soon as possible. We will base this on the Larosière report and see how quickly we can get it into place. We need more coordinated global solutions and effective and functioning international institutions. We need clear principles for bonus systems. I have great faith in the Financial Stability Board and I am confident that it will come up with specific realisable proposals that we can discuss. We would also like to take up the matter of climate financing. We will call upon all countries to shoulder their responsibilities, but I am not sure that it is realistic to expect to be able to discuss figures at the summit in Pittsburgh. Naturally, we will work towards this, because it would be a good thing. We also need global solutions. We cannot separate EU solutions from this system, but instead must ensure that we get as many global solutions in place as possible. Unemployment is perhaps the most noticeable aspect of the economic and financial crisis to the people of Europe. Unemployment is here to stay for some time in most of our countries and that is a very, very serious situation. It calls for European and national solutions. We must have a strong labour market policy, we must make it easier for companies and entrepreneurs to take the risk of employing people and to dare to invest and we must ensure that people are employable by investing in education and research. We will be having a special discussion on unemployment at Ecofin in October. We also have to discuss exit strategies. Otherwise, there is a risk that the measures that we have taken will have negative effects on unemployment and growth in particular, and will result in deficits and inflation. It is always the most vulnerable in our society who suffer first. When it comes to the poorest countries, we are very, very aware that it is they who are the biggest losers in the international crisis. It is hitting the poorest in the world hard. We have discussed and are continuing to discuss how we can ease the situation of these people. It is important that the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) have sufficient resources to be able to provide what are known as soft loans. It is also important that we ensure that the international trading system works properly and that there is no protectionism inherent in it. Consequently, the various discussions concerning global taxes and various kinds of Tobin tax are only meaningful if they can actually be realised globally, and at the moment that is not the case. As a result, they would only be counterproductive and would not help our economies. Many Members have raised the matter of hedge funds and new financial regulation. These are priority issues for the Swedish Presidency. We will decide these matters alongside you and we look forward to working very closely with the European Parliament to get directives on hedge funds and financial regulation in place as soon as possible. I am aware that it is difficult and complex – that there are many aspects to take into consideration – but we are prepared to work with you as closely as possible to get this in place. In summary, naturally the G20 Summit cannot solve all the problems that we have discussed. Nonetheless, I have good reason to hope that we can make substantial progress on the issues that we have discussed. There is pressure from the citizens of Europe, but there are also people around the world who expect us to demonstrate our leadership and increase the stability of the financial systems, to do our utmost to avoid this type of crisis in the future and ensure that we come out of this crisis stronger than we went into it. The EU is united, the EU is strong, and I can assure you that the Swedish Presidency will do its utmost to defend and assert the views of Europe at the G20 Summit next week. Thank you very much for a highly interesting debate.
| 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, I believe we are all agreed that, in the current situation in which we still have to tackle huge and extensive challenges as a result of the crisis, the success of the G20 Pittsburgh Summit and the belief that, as a result of these meetings, we will start to find and apply solutions to the problems and challenges facing us, are extraordinarily important. We are, in fact, starting to see some significant signs of improvement in certain economic indicators, particularly in the growth of international trade and in the confidence of consumers and investors. As a result, all the items on the summit’s agenda should be, must be and I hope will be agreed by the Heads of State or Government and implemented following the meeting next week. One of the most important points, mentioned by many of you, is the need for clarification, for a clear message as to how the world’s major economies intend to keep coordinating their actions. The next step in the coordination of economic policy must be to define an exit strategy and commit to a decision as to when and how this strategy will be applied in a coordinated manner. We must learn – and I believe we have learnt – the lesson from the crisis of the twenty-ninth that the stimulus measures cannot be withdrawn too quickly, when the economy – as some of you have said – still needs crutches. However, we must also not use these stimulus measures for longer than necessary because, in that case, we would be repeating the conditions that led to the bubbles and imbalances which were the cause of this crisis. This is a very important issue, which must be clarified by the Pittsburgh Summit. We must avoid repeating the errors of the past, not only in terms of macroeconomic policies, but also in terms of financial regulation and supervision. I believe that this commitment has been made very clear at previous summits. We must keep developing this commitment and honour those undertakings already made at both global level and, as in our case, at European level. In this respect, I agree with those who have said in this morning’s debate that not everything should be reduced to the issue of pay. However, I also fully agree with those who say that the issue of pay is extremely important in economic, social, political and ethical terms. I believe that Europe is showing its leadership on this issue – as it has done on other issues on the G20 agenda – both through each of the Heads of State or Government and also through the European institutions themselves, the Presidency of the European Union and the Commission. We should not forget that, in April of this year, the European Commission presented the Member States with recommendations on pay, which are almost exactly the same as those that the whole world is now proposing. We must continue to pay attention to the problems of the financial system – more capital, restructuring and correction of bank balance sheets – at both the European and global levels. When you have a fully interconnected financial system, there is no point in us solving our problems within our borders if no one else is solving their problems at the same time. You must remember how, one year ago, on the day before the Lehman Brothers crisis, we still thought that we could avoid the worst problems of the financial crisis created in the United States. At the same time, it is absolutely true, as many of you have said, that, in the end, the political objective is not just to sort out the balance sheet of one bank or capitalise its liabilities. The fundamental problems are employment, the situation of our small and medium-sized enterprises, and the sustainability of our public services and social welfare systems. However, without a functioning financial system, nothing else can be sustained. That is the challenge that must be tackled by the Pittsburgh Summit, or which the G20 must continue tackling at the Pittsburgh Summit. Finally, I should like to comment on an issue that was raised in many of your speeches. While I agree with other items on the G20 agenda, which many of you have mentioned, I want to refer to just one: the issue of tax havens and non-cooperative jurisdictions. It is true that the G20 meeting in London failed to find solutions to all the problems posed by tax havens. It would be very difficult to find all the solutions in one day to a problem that has been around for many years. However, it is also absolutely true that, since the London Summit in April, many more problems have been solved over these six months than were or could have been solved over many years before the London Summit. On this particular point, agreement has been reached on the exchange of information needed to prevent tax avoidance and to prevent economic and financial activities being hidden from the public authorities by utilising the protection of tax havens. It is therefore true that not everything has been solved in these six months. However, in these six months, we have achieved a great deal on an issue which is very important in terms of preventing those financial activities, which are hidden from the regulatory and supervisory authorities, from once again creating distortions in the system. This is also extraordinarily important in terms of the message that we are sending to our citizens about the distribution of responsibility and the efforts needed to tackle this crisis. Lastly, someone said that the EU’s voice must be heard above the voices of the European members of the G20. I can assure you that, under the Swedish Presidency and using the voice of the European Commission, the EU’s voice is being heard. It is being listened to very attentively and respectfully because Europe, and not just one or two European countries, but the European Union was the organisation that started this process of global coordination. This clearly shows that more effective results can be achieved when there is true coordination.
| 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 debate is closed. The vote will take place during the first October part-session. Written statements (Rule 149)
| null |
András Gyürk
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
It is expected that the approaching G20 Summit will place a predominant emphasis on the Copenhagen climate talks. There are still many undecided questions standing in the way of a post-Kyoto agreement. Allow me to express a few thoughts I have on this subject. Number one. Instead of vague long-term promises, we need binding medium-term undertakings. These undertakings must be realistic, fair and accountable. When establishing these undertakings, apart from factors like economic development and natural assets, it is important also to take into consideration the extent to which the Kyoto commitments have been fulfilled so far. Number two. Support should be given for the notion that the EU should assist the developing countries financially as well in achieving their climate policy objectives. A specific financial pledge is needed to achieve this. However, in order to ensure transparency, the developing countries must also make binding commitments and draw up detailed action plans. Number three. Flexibility mechanisms must continue to be given an important role. In order to promote investment, agreement must be reached as quickly as possible on the way in which the certificates deriving from the projects carried out so far can be included. Number four. Market-based instruments must be given more scope in the post-Kyoto system. For example, extending the emissions trading or green certificate schemes may help achieve a reduction in emissions in places incurring the minimum cost. I believe that the economic crisis is not an obstacle to the Copenhagen compromise. A decent medium-term agreement may somehow boost the European economy’s competitiveness, while also reducing the burden on the environment.
| null |
Edit Herczog
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Five years ago, on their accession to the EU, every new Member State committed to adopting the euro. At present, four of them have already achieved this. The other countries have drifted and are lagging behind in this area due to various economic policy considerations and mistakes, not to mention that the economic and financial crisis has put them in a vulnerable position. The economic downturn has fuelled protectionist ambitions, which threatens to undermine the operation of the single market. The current economic crisis has highlighted the fact that the euro has assumed a prominent role in the close economic ties established with the euro area members, but the States hoping to adopt the euro have now ended up in an extremely vulnerable position due to the protracted preparations. Many believe, myself included, that in the critical currency situation that has evolved, the key to the solution would be to speed up the introduction of the euro for these Member States. However, economic policy conditions must be stipulated for this, but even with the previously stipulated conditions it would still take years for the euro to be introduced. In my view, we should not only check that the convergence criteria have remained unchanged, but that the EU is also handling the regulation governing the time which must be spent in the ERM II exchange rate mechanism in a more flexible manner than it does now. I also think that it is very important to examine how the process for joining the euro area could be accelerated, while fulfilling the conditions which can be fulfilled. This could then stabilise the situation in the affected countries, not to mention safeguard the EU’s entire internal market. Otherwise, the possible international insolvency of the countries outside the euro area may, in a worst case scenario, bring down the euro area with it as well.
| null |
Liisa Jaakonsaari
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
fi
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the market economy is a good slave but a bad master. Recently, though, the roles have become rather confused. It is the custom at international conferences to speak trivia, but now we need action, and fast. The world now has a historic opportunity at the Pittsburgh G20 Summit to agree once again on the rules of the global economy. There has been a lot of talk in the press about bankers’ bonuses, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. The global economy is in need of complete renovation and the keyword is transparency. We have to try and do away with the risk economy and move towards the real economy. Only binding international rules can guarantee that there will be no repetition of the casino economy we have witnessed in recent years. In future, the taxpayer should not be made to pay for the damage. There is always the risk with mechanisms like wealth taxes that someone in the global economy will turn out to be a freeloader. I think, however, that we should at least look into how relevant they might be.
| null |
Wojciech Michał Olejniczak
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The G20 Summit in Pittsburgh will be taking place practically on the first anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers bank. This is the background against which world leaders should operate. The repercussions of the crisis have been felt by the inhabitants of almost every part of the globe. The primary aim of the G20 Summit should be to minimise the risk of the crisis caused by the deregulation of the financial markets from repeating itself. The G20 leaders face the task of creating regulation which will prevent further speculative banks from emerging and, to put it bluntly, swindling millions of customers of financial institutions all over the world. In the last few months, we have been getting increasingly bad news about managers who brought their firms to the brink of collapse consuming public aid. In the last few years, we in Europe have been witnessing an unprecedented income gap not previously seen in the European social model. One of the tasks of the G20 group should be to level out incomes in Europe and on a world scale. The financial sector needs to have rules making bonuses dependent not on short-term profits, but on long-term returns on investments. The leaders of several European countries as well as of the European Union as a whole will be present at Pittsburgh. That is why Europe should speak with one voice at the summit. I appeal to the representative of the European Union to remember that the interests of the Community include the interests of Member States which will not have national representatives at the summit.
| null |
Sirpa Pietikäinen
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fi
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
On Monday this week, it was a questionable honour to work on what is a sort of anniversary: exactly a year before, the investment bank Lehman Brothers had collapsed. The collapse is regarded as having actually precipitated the current deep global recession and the financial crisis. At a point in time so close to the anniversary and the approaching Pittsburgh G20 meeting, it is worth stopping to reflect on what has been learned and what can still be learned from the crisis. I see something crucial emerging from the crisis, and that is an opportunity to overhaul thoroughly the international financial architecture. There have already been steps taken in this direction. The G20 meeting last spring served as a good basis for action and guidance for global consensus on the measures required. The United States of America very recently announced a huge financial legislative package. The European Commission is expected to make a proposal for building the European financial architecture and its supervision next week. The key phrase here is ‘global approach’. We have to establish internationally binding rules on the reform of the International Monetary Fund, regulations on solvency, and new rules on the payment of options. The legislation must extend to all financial products, and it needs to be flexible so that it can always react to a changing sector, and one that launches new products. In the grip of a crisis that is wrecking people’s basic security, livelihoods and welfare, it is also constructive to think about new ways of measuring wealth. The final conclusions published by the commission that President Sarkozy recently appointed recommend a switch from measuring prosperity based on GDP to new methods which take account especially of a society’s ability in economic terms to safeguard its citizens’ well-being and environmental sustainability.
| null |
Catherine Stihler
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
I agree with those who spoke about the need for a global co-ordinated approach. This is essential if we are to change the power structures of the global financial system. However neither the Commission or the Council made comment about the concept of 'living wills' for the banking sector. This week marks the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman brothers. It is estimated that it will take ten years for the investment bank to be wound up. This is in contrast to the Dunfermline Building Society which had a life will enabling its assets to be clearly identified. Transparency is essential if we are to bring consumer confidence back to the banking sector.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The next item is the Council statement on SWIFT.
| null |
Beatrice Ask
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, in the overall fight against terrorism, the key question is how are such activities financed. Preventing the financing of terrorism and tracking clues that such transactions may leave behind can both prevent terrorist crimes and be important in the investigation of such crimes. In order to do this, we need international cooperation. Here, we should take up the challenge laid down in the UN’s 1999 Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the conventions of the European Council in this area. Members who participated in the in camera meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 3 September 2009 heard how the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme, the TFTP, has helped to improve security for EU citizens as well as others. In recent years, information from the TFTP has contributed to revealing and investigating terrorist crimes and has also succeeded in preventing terrorist attacks on European soil. The Presidency was given a unanimous negotiation mandate by the Council on 27 July 2009 that is based on a proposal from the Commission. It would have been better if the negotiations with the US could have taken place on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon. The European Parliament could then have participated fully, but as you are aware, that is not yet possible. Since SWIFT is moving its database from the US to Europe at the end of the year, it is essential that the EU concludes a short-term agreement with the US as soon as possible so that there is no risk of the exchange of information being interrupted. That is in everyone’s interest. I would like to stress that this is an interim agreement for the period until a permanent agreement can be concluded. It must have a term of no more than twelve months and the Commission has advised that it intends to submit a proposal for a permanent agreement as soon as a new Treaty is in place. If the TFTP is to be of use to the EU and the Member States, the US must continue to provide the respective authorised authorities within the EU with information from the TFTP in the same way as previously. This is indeed what will happen. Moreover, the interim agreement will provide an express opportunity for the EU’s crime prevention authorities to request information themselves from TFTP databases in the investigation of terrorist crimes. The Presidency is convinced of the benefit of information from the TFTP. At the same time, we are clear that the interim agreement must contain the necessary mechanisms to guarantee the protection of individuals’ privacy, the rule of law and data protection. The draft agreement therefore contains a provision stating that there must be a separate EU authority to receive, process and approve any request from the US to obtain information from SWIFT. It is equally important that the interim agreement contains detailed provisions on data protection for the information that the US receives from SWIFT via the European authority. Here, the agreement will go further than was previously the case in the unilateral commitments to the EU made by the US in the TFTP representations of 2007, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Allow me to mention certain other provisions that we will demand are included in the agreement. Data must be stored securely, all access to data shall be logged, all searches in the TFTP database shall be restricted and shall only cover persons or information where there are good grounds for suspicion or there is a clear link to a terrorist crime. The storage period for the information reviewed shall be limited and information shall be deleted from the database after five years at most, or earlier if possible. We can clearly state that the TFTP will be permitted to be used only in investigations of terrorist crimes, including the financing of terrorism. Neither the US nor the EU may use the system to investigate other kinds of crime or for other purposes. Naturally, it is also important that the transfer of information from the EU to the US under the TFTP is proportionate. In addition to the rules concerning the European authority that I mentioned previously, the agreement therefore also contains a provision stating that the system must be appraised by an independent appraisal body. Where the EU is concerned, this body will consist of representatives of the Presidency, the Commission, and two people from the Member States’ national data protection authorities. The task of the appraisal body will be to check compliance with the agreement, to check the correct application of the provisions on data protection and to check that the transfer of data is proportionate. We have a common responsibility to ensure that the crime prevention authorities can counter terrorism effectively. We also have a common responsibility to ensure that this takes place with legal certainty while respecting fundamental rights. The Presidency is convinced that the exchange of information with the US within the framework of the TFTP increases protection from terrorism, and that we can achieve both an interim agreement and eventually a long-term agreement which not only meets our stringent requirements of data protection but which also respects fundamental rights.
| null |
Jacques Barrot
|
EU Commission Vice-President
|
N/A
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, honourable Members, I would firstly like sincerely to thank Mrs Ask for giving us a summary of all the developments concerning SWIFT and of the negotiations under way with the United States on the continuation of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme, the TFTP. I myself had the opportunity, during the meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 22 July, to explain the workings of the TFTP and why we need an interim solution to prevent its interruption. The joint meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 3 September took place with the Swedish Presidency, the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security, Mr Faull, and Mr Bruguière in attendance. I believe that this meeting allowed a number of still open issues to be clarified. I would like briefly to underline some aspects. The added value of the evaluation, by the US Treasury, of data within the context of the TFTP has been confirmed by Mr Bruguière’s report, which the members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were able to examine at the joint meeting at the beginning of September. As the Presidency has also reminded us, this analysis of the data has enabled the US authorities to prevent attacks and to facilitate investigations concerning terrorist attacks, both in the United States and in Europe. Moreover, Judge Bruguière’s report confirmed that the US authorities had honoured the commitments they made in 2007 regarding data protection, namely – as Mrs Ask explained very well just now – to limit data preservation and to limit access to the data, so that they are used only where terrorist financing is suspected. In short, Mr Bruguière said that the commitments have been honoured. It is clear, however, that the judicial framework negotiated in 2007 will no longer be operational since the data will no longer be located in the United States, after the change in the architecture of SWIFT, scheduled for the end of the year. An interim international agreement between the European Union and the United States is needed so that the US authorities can continue to analyse data concerning inter-European transactions taking place in the Netherlands. The inclusion in this agreement of all the guarantees necessary to safeguard the fundamental rights of our citizens, notably that of the protection of personal data, is absolutely imperative. Of course, we support the Presidency wholeheartedly in its efforts to that end. Moving on, I would like, above all, to say to the House, Mr President, that, as the Minister has just mentioned, we are talking about an interim agreement, the duration of which cannot exceed a maximum of 12 months. This means that it can be renegotiated immediately once the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force, with the full involvement of the European Parliament. I can genuinely assure you, here, that the Commission will, of course, continue to keep Parliament constantly informed of the progress of this matter. I would add that we are pleased to be able to prepare this agreement, which will be a permanent agreement, a long-term agreement, by demanding, of course, full reciprocity from our US partners. The fight against terrorism concerns us, too, and there is no reason why there should not be full and complete reciprocity. That is why I believe the involvement of Parliament in this negotiation of a future long-term agreement will be beneficial. That is what I believe in all honesty. I would once more like to thank the Swedish Presidency and Mrs Ask for giving us a thorough overview of the situation, which has today given rise to this, once again, interim agreement.
| null |
Ernst Strasser
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Mrs Ask, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the US is an important partner in the fight against terrorism. However, on the question of sensitive data in particular, we want European regulations on data security, on civil rights and on the individual rights of our citizens as far as data is concerned, in cooperation with the Americans. That is why we in the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) are calling for a number of basic criteria for concluding this sort of contract. Firstly, there must be a balance between civil security and civil rights. Secondly, we need legal certainty for the companies concerned and for our citizens. Thirdly, we welcome the co-legislator role of the European Parliament and therefore also welcome the intention of concluding a transitional agreement. We wish you, Mrs Ask, and the Commission, success here in the coming weeks. Fourthly, we believe that internal European data sets should be handled in accordance with European law, both in the transitional agreement and in the final agreement. Fifthly, we want a similar instrument to the TFTP, to be introduced in addition at EU level, and, sixthly, we are of the opinion that this is the precondition to reciprocity. These are our thoughts and we trust that they will meet with a broad consensus in plenary. Once the transitional agreement has been concluded, we will need to negotiate and conclude the final agreement quickly.
| null |
Claude Moraes
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, SWIFT has clearly become a testing ground for getting the balance right between our cooperation with the United States, fighting terrorism and protecting our fundamental rights. When, in our resolutions of 2006 and 2007, Parliament asked for the mirroring site of SWIFT to be moved from US to EU soil, it was obviously because we thought that the protection offered by the US framework to EU citizens was not in line with EU standards and would have to be improved. So it is a positive development, and our group welcomes the fact that SWIFT’s two new servers will now be moved to Europe and that a new legal framework will be set up in order for the US TFTP to continue using and processing data in cooperation with our law enforcement authorities. My group can also see that the recommendation adopted by the Council tries to address some of Parliament’s and the European Data Protection Supervisor’s concerns. But there are some key questions left open. If US legal standards continue to apply on EU soil for the processing of EU data, how can we guarantee respect for EU standards regarding procedural rights and the protection of personal data? To which judge can an EU citizen or an EU enterprise go in the case of criminal prosecution? Of course, one of the most important issues is the timing of the agreement and the interim nature of the agreement, as the Council and Commission have set out. The choice of a third-pillar legal base, coupled with its interim character, leaves Parliament – and, therefore, EU citizens – completely out of the legislative process. The Socialist and Democrat Group is clear that this interim agreement should apply only for 12 months and that a new agreement should be negotiated with Parliament as co-legislator so that we in this House can ensure that delicate balance of protecting the fundamental rights of European citizens in the important and critical fight against terrorism.
| null |
Sophia in 't Veld
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, after all these warm words, I am going to put a cat among the pigeons! I am not going to say anything about the content, as I think it is self-evident that what has been negotiated is in line with European standards of legal protection and the protection of personal data, but I do now want to get a couple of answers about the process, as this is the umpteenth example of the Council taking decisions affecting citizens behind closed doors. The governments of Europe and the United States want to know everything about our private lives, but we, as citizens, do not get to know what the Council does. For me, that is a little bit back-to-front. The fight against terror has practically become a kind of runaway train, with the Council showing utter contempt for European citizens and parliamentary democracy. Every time, whether the current case relates to Swift, PNR, data retention or whatever else, we are told that ‘this is indispensable to the fight against terror’. I dare say, Minister, but when will we actually get some facts for once, when will we do some evaluation? There are also a number of questions that I would really like to see answered in relation to Swift, as they were not answered on 3 September. Why not? It was known back in 2007 that the architecture of Swift needed to be reformed. Why did the Council only come up with this plan at the very last minute in the summer, while Parliament was still to get started? Why have you not consulted the national parliaments on the mandate? Why? Is this not a case of policy laundering, Minister, where it is actually the case that European governments are trying to get access to our data via the US government? Just come out and say it! Finally, let me deal with transparency. The documents, and specifically the legal advice from the Council’s own Legal Service, must be made public, and not just in a small room only accessible to MEPs – since we have already found them next to the photocopier, we already know what they say – but for the citizens of Europe. That is real transparency.
| null |
Jan Philipp Albrecht
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the Presidency and the Commission talk constantly of strengthening civil rights and of a Europe of the citizens. In fact, however, fundamental rights are being eroded and proper public debate on them frustrated. Every effort is being made to exclude parliaments and hold back information. This sort of untransparent approach is unacceptable for a democratic Europe. It is not enough to just tap at the door; a responsible parliament must stop this undesirable development. The Presidency must interrupt negotiations until it can guarantee the rights of citizens and parliaments. The horse-trading which you are planning for banking data, with no binding protection mechanism, will sell the data protection rights of Europe’s citizens down the river and create a preventive general suspicion towards all citizens. We Greens will have nothing to do with this. Not even temporarily and certainly not if we have servers here in Europe and no longer just in the US, because the data will continue to be sent to the US nonetheless and legal protection will not be guaranteed.
| null |
Marie-Christine Vergiat
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to speak for the first time in this House on behalf of the millions of Europeans who want a different Europe. The SWIFT affair is symptomatic of the security blunders imposed in the name of terrorism, where utter contempt is shown for the most fundamental rights of our fellow citizens. In this affair, the United States plundered bank data, without legal basis and without even the slightest information from the authorities in Europe. The scandal has made the European authorities sit up and take notice. An agreement has been signed with the US Government. An expert has made an assessment of this agreement. Which expert, though? A French anti-terror judge, Judge Bruguière, whose errors in the area of fundamental rights are well known in France. We are therefore sceptical about the quality of his report. Apart from the matter of principle, the proposal for a resolution put before us includes numerous warnings that we agree with, but they are insufficient. We propose amendments to reinforce the demands that the European Parliament has a duty to make. We must go further and call for the suspension of the agreement if the principles set out are infringed. We would like to know why it has taken the European authorities so long to inform Parliament and why there has been such a rush to conclude this new agreement. We are counting on the Swedish Presidency. We will continually monitor respect for human rights. Yes, our fellow citizens have a right to security, but this must be done without us being forced to live in a big brother society where everyone knows everything about us.
| null |
Beatrice Ask
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, thank you for these important points of view. I will try to answer some of the questions in the short time available. The first question that arises is, of course, how we can guarantee that the US will abide by the agreement. I would like to say that first we have the Bruguière report, which provides a good description of compliance with the terms of what has been agreed to date. Secondly, the draft agreement mentions an appraisal body, which I described to you, and also the Presidency, the Commission and representatives of national data protection authorities, the involvement of which is intended to check that the matter is dealt with correctly. Obviously, it is crucial that the information is reliable. It is also important that everyone realises that when information is transferred in this data programme, it is not the case that people can go in at any time and look at whatever they like. There has to be a suspected terrorist crime or the financing of such in order to gain access to this information. Naturally, this restricts how the information can be used. As regards the criticism as to why this is being brought up now, during the summer, I would point out that the Presidency has asked more or less the same questions as the Members of the European Parliament are asking. We were tasked with preparing the matter thoroughly and analysing – among other things – this report, which answers some questions, but also with other matters. The reality is that it was not us that decided that SWIFT was to be moved to Europe; this is happening on the basis of other decisions. However, the US is keen to be able to use this tool in its fight against terrorism and we also think the equivalent information would be useful to us. In order for this to happen, we need an agreement. Since the Treaty of Lisbon has not entered into force, we felt it was necessary to provide a temporary solution. That is what we are negotiating and that is what we have been mandated by the Council to do. That is what I have attempted to describe. Neither is it the case that the Presidency wishes to unnecessarily restrict insight or debate in any respect. Firstly, this is a public debate after all, and secondly, we are, of course, happy to talk about how the discussions are going. However, during negotiations, it is not possible to provide continual access to documents since the very nature of negotiations is that things get changed and then changed again. However, I have tried to describe our starting point and the clear mandate that we have from the Council. In this, we are very determined to combine a high level of effectiveness and practical use with the stringent requirements of legal certainty and respect for civil liberties and human rights. I am entirely convinced that we will achieve this. If – contrary to expectation – we do not, then there will be no agreement.
| null |
Jacques Barrot
|
EU Commission Vice-President
|
N/A
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would simply like to confirm the remarks made by the Minister, who, incidentally, has drawn a very clear conclusion: if we did not really have the data protection assurances we need, for the lasting agreement that the Presidency will have to negotiate and for which the Commission will lend its support, there would not be an agreement. That being the case, I believe that we should be able to reconcile matters and so conduct a campaign against terrorism, with respect shown, of course, for the great values and the great principles which mean that we in Europe attach much importance to the protection of privacy, on the one hand, and to the prevention of all commercial espionage, on the other. I would simply say that, as far as I am concerned, since taking up my duties, I have obviously noted the fact that the Council asked Judge Bruguière to go and carry out this fact-finding mission in the United States. The Bruguière Report, which dates from December 2008, was handed to me in January 2009. This report was presented to the European Parliament and the JHA Council in February 2009. It was at that point that the Commission felt that it had in its hands the essential elements to ensure the continuity of the TFTP in anticipation of a time when, with the Treaty of Lisbon signed and the Parliament a co-legislator, we can really negotiate a long-term agreement with all the guarantees that the Minister mentioned and all the demands for reciprocity that Mr Strasser, in particular, touched on as well. I believe that in this matter, the Council has just made its will very clear. The Commission shares this opinion, this firm and clear commitment by the Council to make sure that the European Parliament does indeed become a co-legislator, when the time is right for a lasting agreement.
| null |
Sophia in 't Veld
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I have a small point of order. I note that once again we are not getting replies from the Council to the questions that we put. I asked why the Council waited for two years, until the very last moment, to decide on this deal, and I would also like to know – and we can get the answer in writing – why the national parliaments have been completely excluded from the whole procedure. Finally, I read your answer, which was fairly vague and seemed to be saying that you will not publish the legal opinion of the Legal Service of the Council.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
SWIFT (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The debate is closed. (Vote: 17 September 2009)
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area.
| null |
Cecilia Malmström
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I am delighted to have the opportunity to present one of the main priorities of the Swedish Presidency – the development of the strategy for the Baltic Sea area. This proposal was largely inspired by the initiative taken by the European Parliament back in 2005 in a cross-party working group led by Christopher Beazley. Sweden intends to use its Presidency to draw up a coherent, comprehensive strategy for the area based on proposals from the Commission. One of the main events is an extensive high-level meeting that will take place in Stockholm tomorrow and the following day. Naturally, Sweden and the other countries neighbouring the Baltic have a great interest in the strategy for the area, but we also believe it could serve as a model for other regions and other regional strategies that would be useful to the entire EU. By working across borders and between different sectors in a particular region, we can deal collectively and more effectively with common challenges such as pollution and environmental destruction. We can create new business opportunities and new jobs, and improve transport links. Consequently, it is important that regional strategies form part of a wider European policy. The proposed strategy for the Baltic Sea area is the result of a request made by the European Council to the Commission in December 2007 and the initiative was supported by the European Parliament in a resolution of 12 December 2007. It is hoped that the strategy will gain the backing of the European Council meeting at the end of October. The aim of the strategy is to improve the environment in the Baltic Sea area and to increase integration and competitiveness in the area. The strategy addresses four challenges in particular: ensuring a sustainable environment, increasing wealth, improving accessibility and attractiveness, and guaranteeing security and certainty in the area. Getting to grips with the environmental issues is, of course, one of the main priorities. There are very serious threats to the Baltic Sea environment which, in turn, means that there is a risk that its economic development will be affected. This is a very sensitive marine environment that is exposed to various kinds of environmental impact. Decisive efforts are needed, and quickly. In particular, overfertilisation and algal blooms caused by excess nutrient run-off are threatening the ecological equilibrium of the Baltic Sea. At the same time, the Baltic Sea is also affected by pollution from land-based sources, hazardous substances and the effects of climate change. As a result of these acute and serious environmental threats, the Baltic Sea area is an obvious priority in the area of the environment and we hope that conclusions will be adopted in December. However, the serious state of health of the Baltic Sea area is not the only challenge faced by the region. The economic crisis has made the matter of jobs and growth highly topical. Most of the countries in the Baltic Sea area are small and are dependent on exports. This means that we must increase integration in order to strengthen competitiveness throughout the entire Baltic Sea region. Our aims and goals in this respect are clear. We want the internal market to function better in our region than anywhere else, and we want the new Lisbon strategy for jobs and growth to be implemented effectively in this part of Europe. We must address the crisis by increasing cooperation and commitment in our immediate area. Global competitiveness requires cross-border cooperation between countries and enterprises, in research and through innovations. The aim of the strategy for the Baltic Sea area is not to create new institutions. Rather, we are endeavouring to use the instruments and policy areas that already exist such that together, they benefit the area in a more strategically coordinated and intelligent way. Neither does the strategy involve new resources being injected into the area. It is based on existing EU programmes and existing structures and on finding better ways to coordinate. Naturally, our objective cannot be achieved overnight, but our goals are ambitious. We deserve a cleaner Baltic Sea at the centre of an area that offers prospects for sustainable economic development across borders, supported by the entire EU. If we can achieve this, then I am convinced that we will be serving the interests of the Baltic Sea area, and I hope that we will also create a model that can be adapted and applied effectively in other regions. I would like to express my thanks for the positive cooperation of the Commission on this matter, and not least the European Parliament – which is, after all, the institution that originally took the initiative and has been a driving force in connection with cooperation in the Baltic Sea area throughout.
| null |
Paweł Samecki
|
EU Commissioner
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking Parliament for having included the new strategy for the Baltic Sea region on the agenda of its plenary session. The high visibility this provides for the strategy is extremely welcome. Of course, it is not a complete surprise to me that Parliament is taking such an interest in the strategy. The pioneering work undertaken by Parliament through its Baltic Interparliamentary Group in particular was very much one of the catalysts for the whole macro-regional strategy approach. The Baltic Sea Strategy has required a completely new approach from the European Commission as it is the first time that we have prepared an integrated strategy for a group of Member States who have to face the same challenges and who may benefit from the same opportunities. I will not hide the fact that the preparatory work has brought challenges of its own, but these have been overcome successfully. The four pillars of the strategy provide an overarching framework for improving the overall situation of the Baltic Sea region. By addressing the environment, the economy, energy and transport and safety and security issues, the strategy provides an integrated approach covering several policy areas while ensuring close interaction among the fields concerned. Since the Commission adopted the strategy in June, the Swedish Presidency has led positive and constructive discussions in Council which are to lead to conclusions already in October. This rapid progress is important if we are to maintain momentum as we enter the implementation phase of the strategy. I would like to underline this point as it must be clear that all our preparatory work on the strategic framework that I have just described will count for nought unless we start to deliver genuine visible concrete results on the ground, hence the importance of the strategy’s action plan which has also been drawn up during the preparatory work. The implementation of an action plan will require real cooperation, commitment and leadership from Member States and regional stakeholders to deliver the 80 or so projects included at this stage. In financial terms, although there is no additional financing from the EU budget, the strategy proposes a more coordinated use of existing funds and a more imaginative approach to other funding sources such as the European Investment Bank or the Nordic Investment Bank. I would now like to say a few words about the planned governance system which is proposed for the operational implementation of the strategy. This is one area where there has been much discussion among the Member States, but the overall approach is that policy orientations will be taken by the Council. The coordination monitoring and reporting is done by the Commission and the implementation on the ground is led by the Member States or organisations of the Baltic Sea Region. In addition, the Commission proposes to play the role of a facilitator in the case of difficulties. However, I would stress that the Commission has neither the capacity nor the desire to lead the delivery of the action plan itself. Responsibility must rest with the relevant Member States and other stakeholders directly involved on the ground. This is the only way to ensure that the ownership of a strategy is in the hands of the Member States and other stakeholders. So what are the next steps? Once we have conclusions from the Council and the European Council, we will take forward the implementation phase of the strategy. Here we expect to see a wave of coordination meetings to kick-start the various priority areas and individual projects included in the action plan. The first formal assessment of progress made will be presented under the Polish Presidency in the second half of 2011. However, prior to that, the first annual forum of the Baltic Sea Strategy will take place next year. This will give all stakeholders an opportunity to consider how the first months of the strategy have gone and what lessons might already be drawn at that stage. I would like to conclude by saying that I look forward to continuing to work closely with Parliament on all aspects of strategy. The Commission very much expects Parliament to be actively involved in events such as the annual forum. Your backing is crucial to maintain widespread visibility for the strategy to maintain high-level political support for the strategy and to maintain pressure on the Member States and the regional actors to deliver results.
| null |
Tunne Kelam
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the PPE Group congratulates the Swedish Presidency on its leadership in starting to implement the Baltic Sea Strategy (BSS). This strategy reflects a fundamental change that took place in this region five years ago. Since 2004, the Baltic has become the EU’s internal sea. That is why the Union needs a comprehensive approach so as to react in a coordinated way to both the opportunities and challenges this new situation presents. Furthermore, the BSS is an example of excellent cooperation between the main institutions of the EU. As you might know – and as it has been said – the strategy in question was initiated by Parliament three years ago, more precisely by the Baltic Europe Intergroup under the excellent leadership of Christopher Beazley. I would also like to express my special gratitude to Commission President Barroso. His understanding and support since 2007 were crucial in preparing a practical version of the strategy, which resulted in the Commission communication last June. I would like to make three points. First, the goal of the initiators was to turn the Baltic Sea area into one of the most competitive and rapidly developing regions of the EU. Provided we make maximum use of the BSS, this region could well become a success story of what is now called the Lisbon Programme. Second, just now, more than ever, the region needs better access to and security of energy supplies. The EU and Member States have to agree on providing alternative channels for energy deliveries. First and foremost, it comes down to creating a united energy system around the Baltic Sea. Finally, the issue of the bilateral and primarily political Nord Stream project should be settled through respecting the rightful interests of all states around the Sea and certainly not before the Russian Government joins the Espoo Convention.
| null |
Constanze Angela Krehl
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Mrs Malmström, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that the Swedish Presidency has put cooperation in the Baltic Sea area at the top of its agenda. There is no need for argument here: we need to protect resources and we, too, need to help protect the climate and nature. On the other hand, we must also focus cooperation in the Baltic Sea area on economic development, of that there can be no question. You have our full support here. However, some questions do still arise. You just said that there are no additional funds. As we discussed this in committee, all the funds are to be made available under the current cohesion policy. For me, this raises the question of whether this means under existing projects that are already being financed from cohesion resources or under new projects. If so, we need to ask which cohesion policy projects already approved will lose funding. This is a very important point, because I already know that the towns, local authorities and regions will come and ask me, what should we do in order to become involved in the Baltic Sea Strategy? How do we get the funds to run this sort of project? If we do not give them a good answer and cannot indicate how this cooperation is to be organised, then citizens’ enthusiasm for Baltic Sea cooperation will probably quickly turn to frustration. That is not the objective that we are working together to achieve and we therefore need to hold very intensive talks on how to organise this cooperation. I therefore ask – and I would ask the Commissioner to take this on board – that not only the Council and the Commission participate in the Baltic Sea Strategy, but also that Parliament is properly involved in this cooperation and in the implementation of this strategy, because we would like other regions to profit as well, as with the Black Sea policy or with cooperation between the states bordering the Danube. That would be very important to us.
| null |
Anneli Jäätteenmäki
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
fi
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, my group is very happy that the Commission has drafted the EU’s first Baltic Sea Strategy document. This is also the first strategy document of its kind for this region and we hope that it will serve in particular to speed up the process of cleaning the eutrophic Baltic Sea. The region’s problems can best be solved through cooperation between its peoples, countries, organisations and businesses. My group is especially pleased that Sweden has highlighted the importance of countering the trade in humans and crime. I wish, in particular, to thank Mrs Malmström for this, because I think that this is also her handiwork. This is an important issue, and it is rather odd that in 2009, we should be having to speak about the existence of a trade in humans in the Baltic Sea region. We now need a Baltic Sea action plan to end this.
| null |
Satu Hassi
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
fi
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is excellent that the Commission has drafted a proposal for a Baltic Sea Strategy and that Sweden has added it to its agenda. I hope that Sweden will acquire something more tangible in its efforts to protect its marine environment, mainly in the areas of agriculture and shipping. After all, the Baltic Sea is one of the world’s most polluted seas, and its biggest environmental problem is eutrophication. Agriculture is mainly responsible for that: there is nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from EU fields. Nitrogen and phosphorus take oxygen from the seabed and feed poisonous algae at the surface. The question of whether the Baltic Sea is to be cleaned is largely in the hands of the EU. The Commission recognises this in its strategy, but the proposals for measures are vague. Virtually the only precise measure is to prohibit the use of phosphates in detergents. That is a necessary move, but we also badly need new rules for agriculture, so that we can produce food without smothering the Baltic Sea at the same time.
| null |
Marek Gróbarczyk
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would like to draw attention to the fact that in its guidelines, Europe’s Baltic Sea Strategy was supposed to promote a comprehensive programme for the development of this part of Europe, inter alia by establishing the most natural and shortest transport routes to balance out the development of the countries of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe. That is why I am astonished by the Commission and the Council’s proposal to change the layout of the central European route. The most economic link between the Adriatic and Baltic Sea is the central European route along the course of the Odra, whose overland route ends at the port of Szczecin-Świnoujście. I propose a clear memorandum to re-activate the strategy in its original form, which mentions a central European route, one which will not erase from Europe’s development plans major ports such as Szczecin-Świnoujście, which is already suffering from the European Commission’s decision to liquidate its shipbuilding industry.
| null |
Rolandas Paksas
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
lt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
In exactly 2564 hours, the reactor at Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania – the last remaining independent energy source in Lithuania – will be shut down. Europe has already invested EUR 200 million in the safety of this power plant. To decommission it today, European States will have to contribute another EUR 800 million. From a legal point of view, Europe is probably correct; every country has to observe the commitments it has made, but is it really right? Is it right with respect to the citizens of Lithuania and other states? I do not think so. Money for the decommissioning of the reactor will have to be taken from people hit by the economic crisis. Is it logical or right, when there is a crisis in Europe, when GDP in Lithuania has fallen by 22%, when unemployment has reached 15%, when winter is coming, to close a working nuclear plant which is safe, I repeat safe. No, this is wrong. Having given its word, Lithuania will implement the conditions of the accession treaty, but this will be a huge sacrifice. Following this sacrifice, Lithuania will find it considerably harder to overcome the economic crisis. Unemployment in the country will grow even more and poverty will increase. Ladies and gentlemen, tell me, does Europe need such a sacrifice today? Do we not have a better way to spend EUR 800 million today? Appealing to the conscience, economic logic and common sense of each one of you, I call on you to add to the strategy we are debating today a provision that Ignalina nuclear power plant will remain open until 2012, i.e. until the end of its safe lifespan. I hope that by approving President J. Buzek’s political programme in the area of energy, that is, diversification of energy supply and the development of nuclear power in Member States, the European Parliament will make the concrete steps required. Ladies and gentlemen, there are only 2563 hours and 58 minutes until the reactor is shut down.
| null |
Franz Obermayr
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in theory, projects such as these on the regional promotion of cross-border cooperation are to be welcomed and make a great deal of sense. However, strategies often have the disadvantage that, although targets are set and even reached, sustainability is ignored, even during implementation. Sustainability must therefore be included right from the planning phase. It is therefore important when implementing this integrated strategy for the Baltic Sea area – a very important exemplary EU project – for regions and organisations to cooperate as a network, because these organisations know best what is important for them in the various sectors, such as nature, social structure and infrastructure; they know what to do for the best. This is an area with 100 million inhabitants and an investment budget of EUR 50 billion. We need to proceed very carefully here if we are to make a success of this pilot project. This pilot project is, as already mentioned, very important for other projects along the Danube, too, for the states bordering the Danube in central and south-east Europe.
| null |
Andrzej Grzyb
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
What a macroregion needs is a coordinated policy of sustainable development. This is what the European Parliament, and then the Council, believed in 2007 when it recommended that the European Commission draft a Baltic Sea Strategy and an action plan. Here I would like to underline the role the then Commissioner Mrs Danuta Hübner played in drafting this strategy. This policy is now being continued by Commissioner Samecki, to whom I also extend my heartfelt congratulations. Amongst other things, the strategy responds to the fundamental challenges named here, such as achieving prosperity in a region with little development of innovation or enterprise, or failing to acknowledge the Baltic as a common asset without building a sustainable environment, or security in the region, including energy security, without building new generation facilities and interconnections. The same is happening with citizens’ security and accessibility of the region thanks to the construction of trans-European communications links. I would like to stress the huge role – and it really is a vast contribution – played by the opinion makers who were consulted on this draft strategy, particularly citizens’ organisations, local and regional governments, national governments and Baltic organisations. The active participation of these organisations should be very useful in realising these strategies. The Baltic Sea Strategy is a good example of how we can use the instruments of Community policy to materialise political will over a large macro-regional area of the European Union. I would like to make four points, Mr Commissioner. First of all, I believe it is key to focus on managing the Baltic Sea Strategy in such a way as to avoid eroding interest both at local, as well as at government and European Union level. We should also concentrate on properly funding the implementation and operation of the strategy itself – on this matter, an amendment to the budget has been agreed. Secondly, there is the need for full implementation of single market principles in the macroregion, taking into account the experience and engagement at local and regional level. The two final matters are: institutional support for funding undertakings within the scope of the strategy, and maintaining good relations with our partners in the region, including Russia, Norway and Belarus.
| null |
Diana Wallis
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I think it is wonderful that both the Commission and now, especially, the Swedish Presidency, has breathed life into Parliament’s ideas and ambitions in this fragile area. We all know the problems to do with the environment of the Baltic Sea and the specific economic difficulties of the area. But this Parliament remains ambitious, and I think this Parliament does want to be involved. One of the mechanisms you did not mention was the possibility of a regular report back to this Parliament so that we may have a debate like today to watch how things are progressing. For me, I will have the pleasure, as a Vice-President of this House, of participating in the conference that you are organising on Friday. I think there are concerns still remaining about funding, to make sure that this House sees the results of this strategy that it deserves. A macro-regional economic strategy could be the way forward in other ways, in other places, in Europe. Let us hope that this one works well.
| null |
Isabella Lövin
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I am delighted that environmental issues are a main priority in the new strategy for the Baltic Sea area. The Baltic Sea is suffering two major acute environmental problems. The first – overfertilisation – has already been mentioned by Mrs Hassi. The second problem is overfishing. Researchers are entirely unanimous on this. Relatively recent knowledge suggests that the lack of top predators, i.e. cod, has further worsened the algal blooms. The problem is that the Baltic Sea needs a healthy ecosystem. It would therefore be very good if a pilot project – a fast track project – could be established within the new Baltic Sea Strategy involving regional fisheries management in the Baltic Sea area. We would also need to prohibit the dumping of cod and this should take effect immediately. At present large volumes of young cod that have just arrived in the Baltic Sea are being dumped. I call on the Swedish Presidency to take up my challenge and deal with this problem.
| null |
Oldřich Vlasák
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
cs
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was already agreed during the last parliament that the Baltic Sea region was suitable for a pilot project aimed at implementing an internal EU strategy for the macroregion. I consider it appropriate that this strategy, which is based on the aim of a more consistent application of Community law and the more effective use of EU funds, does not introduce new laws or institutions and does not depend on any special funding. I can see savings in linking up local and regional bodies. It is essential in the practical implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy to rearrange the responsibilities of the various administrative bodies within the system of multi-layered government in order that the activities of the various bodies and organisations do not overlap. In future discussions on the impending cohesion policy, it would be useful, at the same time, to clarify how the various macro-regional strategies and mainstream EU regional policies will co-exist alongside one another. It would also be useful to clarify how the Baltic Sea Strategy will affect the planned application of a territorial cohesion policy.
| null |
Anna Rosbach
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
da
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, we are discussing a 1 200 km gas pipeline beneath the Baltic from Vyborg in Russia to Greifswald in Germany through an ecologically sensitive inland sea where there is a large difference in sea bed levels, through an area where undetonated explosives from two world wars, as well as poisonous chemicals from the paper industry, are constantly being found. Around EUR 100 million have been expended on an environmental analysis performed by the company that is to lay the pipeline, namely Nord Stream – a gas supply agreement between Gerhard Schröder and Vladimir Putin. I will not even mention the security issues surrounding the great increase this will bring to Russia’s influence in the Baltic, but instead I will stick to the environmental problems this will bring. Unfortunately, Finland has already approved the project, but on behalf of Timo Soini, as well as for myself, I would now like to establish the whereabouts of the information relating to the project which the citizens of all the countries on the Baltic need before building work takes place.
| null |
Inese Vaidere
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
lv
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mrs Malmström, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the formulation of a strategy for the Baltic Sea region is a very important achievement for Parliament, in which the members of the Baltic intergroup have played a leading role. This strategy is comparable to the Mediterranean strategy which, in its time, stimulated rapid economic growth in the South. It will serve as a good instrument for the development of the Baltic region and, as a result, for the whole of the European Union. Speaking of priorities, I should first wish to mention the development of a common European Union energy policy, including a competitive Baltic energy market. This involves not only the aspects of security of energy supply and energy efficiency, but also, naturally, the development of renewable energy. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia must be integrated into the common regional energy network, including NORDEL. Our second priority is further infrastructure development. The roads in some Baltic Sea region countries, given both climatic conditions and also sometimes ineffective policies, are in a quite poor state. The development of transit corridors and communications networks will stimulate business and create new jobs. So that we may speak of effective economic development and protection of the environment, the third priority is an innovative economy, which means growth that is balanced and knowledge-based. In order to carry out the strategy, additional finance is essential, and this must definitely be provided in the next European Union financial framework. We must now make use both of the EUR 5 billion energy programme and of the globalisation fund and other financial instruments. An effective mechanism for implementing and monitoring the strategy is also important. It has to be simple, transparent and free of superfluous bureaucracy. Regular reviews of the introduction of the strategy and interim reports are essential. The first should already be produced in 2010. I welcome the Swedish Presidency’s active role in getting the strategy going. Allow me to express the hope that we shall be effective and flexible in carrying out this specific action plan.
| null |
Tomasz Piotr Poręba
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, five years ago, the Baltic Sea effectively became an internal sea of the European Union. Today we are debating a draft strategy which will allow us to unleash the huge dormant potential of the region, a project which was the initiative of the European Parliament. However, not all the recommendations of this House have been accepted by the Commission. The most significant was the lack of, and the retreat from, setting up a separate budget line for the Baltic Sea region. The Commission assures us that funding will come from existing instruments, primarily the structural funds. However, I fear that without special funding earmarked specifically for this purpose, we will not be able to achieve all our aims. The authors of the strategy mention the need for close cooperation with Russia. In this context, however, we should not forget the greatest threat at the moment to the Baltic Sea, namely the construction of the Nord Stream pipeline. Last year, the European Parliament took a negative stance on this. I hope that the new Commission, by instituting the action plan associated with the strategy, will bear this resolution in mind too.
| null |
Danuta Maria Hübner
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it is indeed a unique European regional policy initiative and a pioneering project. Innovation-driven prosperity, the environment, accessibility in terms of transport and energy connections, and security and safety are the four major areas for joint work by all partners who are involved in preparation of the strategy: all three European institutions – Parliament, the Commission, the Council – but also national governments, regional and local authorities, business and academic communities and non-governmental organisations. The process of the preparation of the strategy has led to a genuine partnership between all of them. Development challenges increasingly do not respect administrative or political borders. The strategy will make it possible to replace the often very fragmented and scattered policy responses with a genuine shared response to shared development problems and opportunities. The European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development, which is the leading committee on this project in Parliament, will give high importance to it in its work. We will hold the debate on 6 October with the Commission and the Council; the own-initiative report will be prepared in the months to come. We will also keep the implementation of the strategy under review and I trust that this action-oriented strategy enhances the Union’s chances to build green, modern and competitive economies.
| null |
Liisa Jaakonsaari
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
fi
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the European Union became aware of the Baltic Sea issue quite late on. A total of 100 million people live by its shoreline, and then there is Russia, which is important. This strategy will have a strong environmental dimension, and this is only right, because the environmental problems of the Baltic Sea are colossal: eutrophication, fading biodiversity, the waste waters of St Petersburg, the problems of Kaliningrad, and so on. It has been mentioned here that this will also change the European Union Cohesion Policy, and this, I think, is quite important, and I hope that more will be said about it here. Minister Malmström says how it will change because the change to the Cohesion Policy will result, for example, in the danger that, when we speak of the Danube Strategy and the Black Sea Strategy, part of Europe, including northern regions, will be ignored and, in fact, Arctic areas right now are undergoing the world’s most rapid changes, and this is important to see.
| null |
Riikka Manner
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
fi
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, the Baltic Sea as a region is special in many ways, and so I am very pleased that Sweden has made this strategy one of its priorities during its Presidency. It is important that we take the strategy forward and thus also implement it. Not only does the Baltic Sea have a very strong environmental dimension to it; I think it also has a major impact on regional policy. During its presidency, Sweden has also integrated these regional policy matters closely with this Baltic Sea Strategy. The strategy is mainly understood as a document that relates to the countries along its shores and their coastal areas, but it definitely has a robust regional dimension. How we go about integrating with this strategy environmental technological expertise, issues concerning inland waters, and its huge impact on transport policy, will also have major repercussions for inland areas. The Baltic Sea Strategy must therefore be made part of the common European agenda. I hope it gets Parliament’s strong support so that the strategy is not just empty words and so that we can achieve something tangible.
| null |
Tatjana Ždanoka
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, as an MEP elected in Latvia, I welcome the fact that the first example of a strategy for a macroregion concerns the Baltic Sea area. Nevertheless, in my opinion, a number of Community objectives have been forgotten here – for instance, a high level of social protection. Some of the region’s Member States, including Latvia, have been severely hit by the economic crisis. Our financial sector is interconnected with the Scandinavian one. This means that our problems will create problems there, so this is not a national issue. Recently, Latvia received medium-term financial assistance for balance of payments, provided for by the Commission. Unfortunately, there are no social conditions for such assistance. As a result, the government is reducing pensions and benefits, but the Commission tolerates this. My second concern is about fundamental rights. Mass statelessness and minority protection still constitute a topical issue in two of the region’s Member States: Latvia and Estonia. I think that the strategy must be more ambitious and seek to attain all the objectives of the European Union.
| null |
Ville Itälä
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fi
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I wish to thank the Commission and the Swedish Government for the very active role they have played, and I believe that the Baltic Sea Strategy is a good and important one. Without proper financing, however, the project will not succeed. In that case, all this will end after the strategy has been adopted. Parliament has been pondering for many years how financing should be organised, and last year it unanimously agreed on the budget having its own Baltic Sea Strategy heading. That is the means, the instrument, for gathering together all the countless projects that the Baltic Sea Strategy now needs if it is to go ahead. I know that the Committee on Budgets has now made proposals for setting aside a little money under the heading, and I hope that the Council and the Commission will also support this, because otherwise the project will simply not succeed. Something else we need to do if we want to rescue the Baltic Sea environment is to obtain Russia’s commitment to this project. I find it incomprehensible how some have been prepared to agree to a gas pipeline running through the Baltic Sea without any obligation on the part of Russia even to commit to the conclusions in the Espoo Convention. That is the least we must do.
| null |
Victor Boştinaru
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I welcome the idea of a strategy for the Black Sea region as a pilot project for the macro-regional strategies. Initiatives of this kind allow the coordination of EU policy instruments in order to have a coherent, stable and sustainable development of the regions involved. On the occasion of the last Council, it was said that a strategy would have been developed for the Black Sea region by the end of 2009. This is an extremely important initiative as it can bring about harmonised development and prosperity for the region that, in comparison with the Black Sea area, is far more complex in terms of actors involved and relevant for security, stability, energy and the environment. So I would like to ask the Swedish Presidency when such a strategy for the Black Sea region will be delivered, and when Parliament will be informed and involved in this issue.
| null |
Werner Kuhn
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Mrs Malmström, Commissioner Samecki, as a newly elected member from Mecklenburg-Western-Pomerania, I very much support the development of a Baltic Sea Strategy and the associated action plan. The Commissioner referred earlier to the flagship projects, 80 in total. Our common objectives are, of course, to improve the competitiveness of our economy in the Baltic Sea area, taking particular account of the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises and of a common energy policy which also takes account of renewable energies. That raises the question of how we deal with offshore installations in the Baltic Sea. Maintaining clean water, because that is our foundation and our resource, plays a very, very important role here, when we think of fisheries and when we think of tourism. That is why investments in treatment plants need to be promoted. I think a common planning programme needs to be agreed for all Member States in the Baltic Sea area, because we need to answer the following questions: where will traffic routes be positioned in future? Where will offshore installations be built? How will safety at sea be addressed? That is why we also need to be clear on where the energy routes will be for Nord Stream, for the supply of electricity, and on many other things. (The President cut off the speaker)
| null |
Cecilia Malmström
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members for the great level of support that you have given us for our continued work on the Baltic Sea Strategy. It is only natural that we should be supported by the European Parliament, because in fact you were the founding fathers of the whole idea of a strategy for the Baltic Sea area and I am pleased that you are also going to ensure that this strategy becomes a reality. It can only be a success – it can only become real, and not just fine words and rhetoric – if all the Member States genuinely acknowledge ownership and feel a real responsibility for ensuring that the project is realised. Success will be guaranteed by working on these projects, setting clear timetables for when they are to be realised and carrying out regular checks. I am sure that, just like the Commission, Parliament will continue to put pressure on us to ensure this actually comes to fruition. One hundred million people live in this region. At any given moment, there are 2 000 ships in the Baltic Sea. It is clear that we face enormous challenges here. We have had a very broad foundation process and I would like to thank the Commission – first Mrs Hübner and now Commissioner Samecki – for the work they have put in. There is a great deal of support in civil society and among the municipalities around the Baltic Sea for us to achieve this. Some Members, Mrs Krehl and Mr Itälä, have raised the matter of resources. It is not intended that any new funds will be earmarked for the strategy. However, there are plenty of resources in the region that we can use. EUR 55 million has been earmarked for the region under the existing budgetary framework. We also know that we can hope for contributions from international institutions such as the EIB, which has shown great interest in the Baltic Sea region. The aim is to keep all administrative costs as low as possible and to work with those who have responsibility locally and nationally for the various flagship projects. One of these concerns trafficking – an area mentioned by Mrs Jäätteenmäki. There is a project that involves strengthening the training of customs and police officers in the region in order to be better able to identify and work on the issue of trafficking. Mrs Hassi and Mrs Lövin mentioned the matter of the marine environment, agriculture and fisheries. There are a number of such projects here and I would very much like to see more of them. I also believe that the strategy could provide the opportunity to gain a better overview of our environmental efforts and our fisheries and agriculture policy and to ensure that they work towards the same ends. There are also other partnerships in the Baltic region. We have an extensive and growing energy policy partnership in which we aim to link up the energy infrastructure in the region, to reduce dependence and improve efficiency. Naturally, this is something that the Union will continue to work on. The Ignalina plant has nothing to do with the Baltic Sea Strategy. That was an old decision that already existed from the time of Lithuania’s accession negotiations. Neither does Nord Stream have anything to do with this. Naturally it is related to the Baltic Sea, but it is not part of the strategy. It is a commercial project that has been examined in accordance with current international environmental conventions and relevant national legislation. The Baltic Sea Strategy is an internal EU strategy. It will be what we make it. However, it is also important – as a number of Members have pointed out – that third countries are involved. We have ensured that we keep countries such as Russia and Norway involved and that we tell them about our work on the strategy as well as signalling to them that we would like to work in partnership with them on specific projects in which we have a common interest. We are looking forward to the conference tomorrow and on Friday and are pleased that Vice-President Wallis is coming to Stockholm. At the conference, we will discuss the strategy for the Baltic Sea area and we hope to gain a strong commitment from the countries concerned to work towards this becoming a reality, as well as discussing macroregions in general. The Danube region and the Black Sea region have been mentioned in this connection. I believe that there is a great deal to do here and a great deal that can inspire us. We hope to be able to move forward in the discussion, although it is a little too early to set actual timetables at present. Once again, I would like to thank Parliament for its strong support for the Baltic Sea Strategy and I look forward to discussing this with Members on future occasions.
| null |
Paweł Samecki
|
EU Commissioner
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the Members of Parliament for their comments and remarks on different aspects of the strategy. Your level of commitment demonstrates that the strategy will be a subject of interest in the forthcoming years, which is good. I will be unable to respond to all comments and issues raised in the debate or in your statements. I would like just to refer to three broad groups of issues. First, the shape. I would like to say that the strategy has been designed in line with the objectives and intentions of Member States. The Commission did not interfere in the selection of priorities. The Commission did not shape the priorities, so the ideas of including certain projects or modifying certain priorities is, of course, possible. However, it is to be agreed in the future work related to the implementation of the strategy. I want to assure you that the strategy is a kind of living animal and it is, to a great extent, exposed to future modifications should Member States and stakeholders wish so. Second point: on management and governance. Here I would like to underline that there is a need for a clear division of tasks, for a clear division of labour and responsibilities. I think that we should not delude ourselves. The responsibilities of Member States, of the Commission and of other organisations involved in the management. At this moment, I would also add that we want to involve local governments in the process of implementing the strategy as well as third countries, as was already mentioned by the Minister. Of course we foresee reporting concerning progress made in relation to implementation to Parliament. Finally, the last issue is financing. Several Members mentioned the need for additional funds for new projects etc. I want to explain that the principle of no new additional financing was adopted at the very beginning of the creation of the strategy. At present, we have more or less three options. We can regulate the use of existing EU funds, for example, by changing criteria for selecting new projects. The second possibility is having recourse to other sources like international financial institutions and finally, although it is difficult at a time of economic recession, we can still try to use national resources. In this respect, I look forward to the work of the conference to be held in Stockholm because this is the conference which may shape the future approach of Member States and the Commission to the macro-regional approach in the future and it should also embrace the financing of potential future strategies. That is why I feel that it will be a good moment to look at the overall macro-regional approach in Stockholm in the forthcoming days.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 149)
| null |
Eija-Riitta Korhola
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fi
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would like to thank Sweden, the country to hold the presidency, for having had the courage to make its own region, the Baltic Sea, and matters relating to it, such a major topic in its programme during its EU presidential term. It is fitting that the Baltic Sea Strategy that we have been preparing for so long is being dealt with now: there is no time to lose. The central aim of the Baltic Sea Strategy and the Action Programme to improve the region’s environment and competitiveness must be taken seriously in terms of the funding allocated to it and the measures implemented. The objectives must be realised in practice: the strategy must not just remain a fancy declaration. We hope in particular that the strategy will expedite the clean up of the Baltic Sea, which is suffering from eutrophication, and help find common solutions to cross border challenges. It is on account of these very objectives that all eyes are now turned to Finland, where soon it will be decided whether or not to allow the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline in its territorial waters. Under the Baltic Sea Strategy, the environmental impact of projects such as these must be investigated using a procedure that is legally binding internationally so that the matter cannot just be shrugged off. We must therefore insist that Russia ratifies the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context that it signed in 1991, and the Finnish Government should make this a condition of processing the gas pipeline’s construction permit. Russia, which also benefits from the Baltic Sea Strategy, only acts according to the agreement when it suits it. This cannot go on any longer: the stakes are too high, and we have to know about projects that are harmful to the Baltic Sea before it is too late.
| null |
György Schöpflin
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The Baltic Sea Strategy promoted by the Swedish Presidency is very welcome. It could readily assume a model function for other European macroregions, like the Danube basin. There is, however, one aspect of the development of the Baltic Sea region that demands urgent reconsideration. This is the Nord Stream sea-bed pipeline between Russia and Germany. Not only is the pipeline the source of serious environmental concern, but – even more urgently – it is a project that has been overtaken by time. The future is not in fixed means of delivering natural gas – via pipelines – but through liquefied natural gas. Nord Stream has every likelihood of being a wholly unnecessary white elephant, and its protagonists should reconsider the project before more money and more resources, effort and energy are tied up in it.
| null |
Bogusław Sonik
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
EU strategy for the Baltic Sea area (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The Baltic Sea Strategy announced in June 2009 aims to establish it as a region which is environmentally friendly, prosperous, easily accessible, attractive and secure. This is particularly important in the context of the increasing challenges facing the Baltic since the EU’s enlargement in 2004. It is important to take action aimed at improving the region’s environmental situation, as it is one of the most polluted marine areas in the world at the moment. Thousands of tonnes of toxic warfare agents lie on the sea bed encased in mines, bullets, bombs, containers and barrels. Estimates as to the quantities of these chemicals range from 30 000 to 60 000 tonnes, of which Yprite alone is estimated to make up 13 000 tonnes. Chemical weapons were sunk here after World War II in the late 1940s. They had been captured in the German occupation zones, and as burying them underground was difficult, the decision was made simply to sink them into the sea. Disturbing the chemical weapons lying at the bottom of the Baltic by building any kind of infrastructure could result in environmental disaster, and particularly the disturbance of chemical weapons from World War II during construction of the Baltic gas pipeline is one of the greatest threats to the ecosystem. That is why an assessment of the effect of building the pipeline on the natural environment of the Baltic Sea basin is necessary.
| null |
Charles Goerens
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, yesterday the President, quite rightly, made much of respect for the Community method. This method guarantees the involvement of all Member States, and Community institutions, in the decision-making processes, and this from the very beginning. The G4’s way of tackling the banking and financial crisis in 2008 was the opposite of respect for the aforementioned method, which Mr Barroso called for yesterday afternoon. In 2008, we waited in vain for President Barroso to call for order. The European Union is of course France, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Italy – all members of the G4 – but it is also Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Luxembourg and so on, which were excluded from an important phase in the decision-making process in 2008. President Barroso, you should have enforced respect for the Community method in 2008, via the same statement you made yesterday. This is why I am unable to support your candidacy. Mr President, may I add a personal remark. It is difficult for those who have the floor to speak with this din all around.
| null |
Crescenzio Rivellini
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after my speech I will say a few words in Neapolitan (Part not transcribed in this document, since Neapolitan is not an official language). I will do so not for reasons of local colour, but to attract political and media attention to our emergencies: the emergencies of southern Italy. I voted for President Barroso, not least because I hope that he will be the President of the whole of Europe, including southern Italy. Located as it is in the middle of the Mediterranean, the South is the gateway to Europe and the link between different worlds. Through its history, geographical position and culture of hospitality, it can play an important role for the old continent as a whole. Southern Italy should be treated with the same dignity as other places in Europe and, now that it is experiencing difficulties, Europe must intervene as energetically as when it regularised 150 million citizens from the East, who became EU citizens. That operation came at a price, and if, today, a worker from Gdańsk earns 28 times more than he earned before, he also owes it to the economic effort of Italy and of southern Italy. (The speaker continued in Neapolitan)
| null |
Daniel Hannan
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, time has, perhaps, habituated us to the hollowness of the ritual that we have just carried out. Familiar as we are with the EU structures, we have ceased to see how anomalous, how outrageous, it is that we have supreme executive and legislative power in the hands of an unaccountable and unelected bureaucracy. The majority of laws in the Member States come from a European Commission whom nobody votes for and nobody can get rid of. The only bit that pretends to democratic authority is the rite that was just carried out in this Chamber, which I cannot help saying put me in mind of one of those occasional meetings of the People’s Assembly in the old Comecon times where we all stand up and congratulate ourselves on having rubber-stamped the decision. I have no personal problems with José Manuel Barroso. If we are going to have a federalist President of the Commission – and I can see that is the will of the House – it might as well be him as anyone else. He seems a nice chap – and, like all British politicians, I am profoundly Lusophile and aware of our relationship with our oldest ally – but there is something farcical about the pretence that there is any democratic involvement in a system that puts a monopoly on the right to initiate law in the hands of people that we cannot vote for and cannot get rid of.
| null |
Syed Kamall
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, like my previous colleague who spoke earlier, I would like to say that I also have my reservations about Mr Barroso being re-elected as President of the Commission. After all, he more than anyone is committed to further European integration, often against the will of the peoples of Europe. But he did come to our group meeting, the ECR Group meeting, and explain that he was in favour of smart regulation. Now, of course, there is much doubt about what ‘smart regulation’ means. Many people believe that smart regulation is bad regulation, or that any regulation is not very smart regulation. But I would ask him, if he really is in favour of smart regulation, to make sure that, on every directive, the Commission carries out a proper economic impact assessment. We have going through this House next year the Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive. The Commission has failed so far to conduct any proper economic impact assessment – in fact they say it cannot be done. How, under those circumstances, are we going to get smart regulation? I ask Mr Barroso to reconsider.
| null |
Andrew Henry William Brons
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I opposed the joint motion for a resolution on forest fires, despite the fact that I agree with European countries cooperating voluntarily to prevent, fight and repair the appalling damage caused by forest fires. However, I object to the creation of European Union bodies that would exercise power over Member States in areas that are wider than necessary to deal with this problem. I draw attention to paragraphs 3, 7 and 8 of the joint motion for a resolution. This proposal is exploiting admirable humanitarian responses to the appalling tragedies that we have seen in order to take further steps towards the creation of the European protection force called ‘Europe Aid’ as outlined in the Barnier report.
| null |
Philip Claeys
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I abstained in the final vote on this resolution, although I did do so with some reservation and a number of doubts, as this text does, without doubt, include many positive elements, things that no one can really oppose. I am thinking, for example, of the support for reinforcing the Member States’ civil protection measures by means of the exchange of experts and working methods. Last summer, we saw once again that some forest fires assume such a scale that cooperation is necessary, but that cooperation between Member States takes place already. Such cooperation can, of course, be deepened further, but it is questionable what value there is, for example, in having a separate EU reaction force. Doing so simply takes resources from the Member States, creates yet another new EU body with its own staff and adds yet more bureaucracy.
| null |
Maria da Graça Carvalho
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
President Barroso has made Europe the world leader in the fight against climate change. The European Union is the only international bloc that has a clear, consistent negotiating position for the Copenhagen conference. The political guidelines for the next Commission outlined by President Barroso present an ambitious, modern vision for Europe, to which the fight against climate change and the areas of the knowledge triangle are central. The challenges facing us are complex, and the responses must necessarily be holistic. For the post-2010 period, therefore, President Barroso is proposing a coordinated and convergent approach involving the Lisbon Strategy, energy and climate policy and social policy. New sources of growth and social cohesion are proposed, based on a new industrial strategy for Europe, a modern service sector and a dynamic rural economy. President Barroso thus prioritises the real economy and its modernisation through scientific research, technological development, innovation and the principles of sustainability. The Commission, under the leadership of President Barroso, in partnership with the European Parliament and the Council, will help to cultivate a prosperous, sustainable and socially advanced European Union.
| null |
Françoise Castex
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
For the sake of political consistency and out of respect for our electorate, I voted against the re-election of Mr Barroso. In the five years of his mandate, Mr Barroso, who harnessed the support of certain EU countries for George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, has never been able to revive the European Union or to strengthen it in the face of national self-interest. He did not measure up to the task when the financial, economic and social crisis occurred. All he has done in these five years is support the wayward paths taken by financial capitalism instead of proposing the new regulations Europe needs in the 21st century. The European Commission’s policy needs to be reoriented. Mr Barroso is not the man for the job. His programme is no match for the scale of the current crisis: it lacks a European recovery plan, a pact for employment, regulation and effective supervision of the financial markets, and more robust and prompt instruments to correct the current imbalances. We need a directive on public services and a reoriented policy by the Commission on pay. If we want to save our European social model, we need a much more ambitious social agenda.
| null |
Diogo Feio
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I am pleased to say that, as a Portuguese and a Member of the European Parliament, I voted in favour of the re-election of José Manuel Durão Barroso as President of the European Commission. I believe his performance during the previous mandate, which was beset by so many political, financial and social difficulties, and the experience he acquired in this post, justified the support of the governments and the renewed confidence of this House. I deplore the many attempts – not all of them open or serious – to prevent his candidacy from succeeding, and I note that they were frustrated not only by a lack of any credible alternative but also by the foolishness of the arguments on which they were based. I regret that Members from my own country could not resist taking that path, which is as easy as it is inconsequential. I hope the second Barroso Commission can combine technical competence with that ‘something extra’. I also hope it will effectively respect and make use of the principle of subsidiarity, and will choose the safety and solidity of taking small steps, as recommended by Jean Monnet, rather than adopting the fast-track approach that has promised much but contributed little to the real progress of the European project and dream. However much we aim for the horizon, we only get there by putting one foot in front of the other. Let us go the right way.
| null |
José Manuel Fernandes
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I welcome the result of this vote, which brings Dr José Manuel Durão Barroso back to the European Commission Presidency. Portugal is proud to have a Portuguese of such recognised ability and quality as Dr Barroso at the head of the Commission. It is even prouder to see the value of his work during his first mandate, from 2004 to 2009. This value has been acknowledged by the European Parliament in this vote. In fact, he was elected by a very large majority, greater than that required by the Treaty of Lisbon. Over the last five years, Dr Barroso showed strong, comprehensive leadership. The energy and climate change dossier, the Services Directive and the regulation on chemical substances are just a few examples of success and leadership. He was also at the forefront in the search for solutions and in concrete proposals to resolve the economic crisis that is still affecting us. The European Parliament has just sent out a signal that Europe is strong and has a strong leader. Therefore, with confidence and hope, we can advance towards a Europe of greater prosperity and solidarity.
| null |
João Ferreira
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
The political guidelines for the next mandate of the Commission, which have just been tabled, reveal its President’s intention to continue pursuing the main lines of action that were included in the guidelines of the mandate that is now ending. Those guidelines lie at the origin of the deep economic and social crisis that we are now experiencing, the tragic consequences of which – unemployment, inequality, poverty and exclusion – have mercilessly afflicted the workers and peoples of Europe. In Portugal, the consequences of implementing the policies resulting from these guidelines have been the destruction or utter crippling of essential productive sectors – agriculture, fisheries and industry; the assault on workers’ rights, the devaluation of wages and the corresponding increase in unemployment and insecure work; inequality in income distribution, which now clearly diverges from the EU average; and the failure of the policies of deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation of basic sectors, which have dismantled public services and commercialised essential aspects of our collective existence. Keeping these same guidelines means perpetuating the concentration of wealth, maintaining divergence instead of convergence, and causing further damaging eruptions of a latent systemic crisis to occur sooner rather than later.
| null |
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
We would all like to see a stronger Europe, and for people to be better off! You do too, judging by the ‘Political guidelines for the next Commission’ which you presented to Parliament. Yet more is expected from a candidate for the future head of the Commission: he is expected to say how he intends to achieve this, rather than just presenting a list of challenges. In fact, the goals are so wide-ranging that there is the danger of them ruling each other out, and there will definitely come a time when a choice will have to be made as to which of the priorities are ‘more important’. For example, which would you choose if the aim of European economic competitiveness clashes with the aim of high levels of employment? The text you sent us does not make this clear. I have the impression that your document is simply a wish-list of things that were not achieved in the previous term. The question is, why not? I would, however, like to speak on the point about the Internet in your programme. You mention the importance of the Internet for economic development and the social cohesion of Europe, and even promise that the new Commission will develop a ‘European Digital Agenda’. What I would like to know is how you intend to implement this idea in practice, and what the Agenda will contribute which is new compared to previous initiatives?
| null |
Bruno Gollnisch
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Like my friends representing the national movements in Europe, I am one of the 219 MEPs who voted against Mr Barroso. He is a likeable and cultured man, but most of all he is the symbol of the failure of the European Union. He has failed to save our economies and our jobs from unfair global competition; to help European countries come out of the crisis; to reform the financial system to curb unbridled speculation; to guarantee democracy; to ensure food self-sufficiency; and to curb the accelerated de-industrialisation of our countries. In a word, he has failed to demonstrate that the Europe of Brussels is more than a machine for grinding down, impoverishing and enslaving nations and peoples. On closer observation, the election of Mr Barroso is also a symbol: that of the way in which this Europe works. What sort of uproar would there be if, instead of the President of the Commission, who is going to influence the lives of 500 million Europeans through his policies, it was a Head of State who, despite being the sole candidate, was elected by little more than half of the votes?
| null |
Sylvie Guillaume
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Today I voted against Mr Barroso’s candidacy for three essential reasons. Firstly, his own track record in the last five years: a Presidency which was weak, conservative and liberal, immobile in the face of the crisis, incapable of stimulating a coordinated recovery, and exclusively attentive to the wishes of the Heads of State or Government. José Manuel Barroso has certainly not furthered a strong Europe. Secondly, the inadequacy of his response to the conditions set by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament: providing neither a genuine recovery plan, nor a pact for employment, no regulation, supervision or effective instruments to correct the imbalances in the financial markets, and making not one commitment concerning a framework directive protecting public services. Finally, the messages sent out by voters during the European elections, which showed us that they no longer want a weakened, incomprehensible Europe, where compromise is considered a superior virtue to political direction.
| null |
Jacky Hénin
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
The election of the President of the European Commission is an extremely important act, and the citizens of the EU should have the right to know their representatives’ choice. Personally speaking, I regret and condemn the secret ballot procedure that leads to a complete lack of accountability. Moreover, as I can find no common ground with the policy proposed by Mr Barroso, I confirm that I will not be supporting his appointment as President of the Commission.
| null |
Cătălin Sorin Ivan
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
ro
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
At the end of the five-year term (2004-2009), the assessment of the European Commission’s activities does not cast President Barroso in a favourable light. Based on this fact, it seems necessary to abstain from voting, especially at a time when a negative vote would be an unwise political decision, given the lack of any alternative, while a positive vote would be tantamount to expressing unconditional and unjustified confidence in an unsatisfactory programme. I believe that the support being given to President Barroso by Member States is unarguable proof of the fact that he has not been a strong president, but rather one for whom national interests have taken priority, meaning that it has been national leaders who have set out the guidelines for his mandate. The European Commission needs a president to support the development of Community policies, constantly strive for integration and promote the concept of a United Europe. He must not be in any way an advocate for national interests. From a social-democratic perspective, President Barroso has not fulfilled a large number of the commitments made at the start of his mandate in 2004. Very little interest has been shown by the Commission in many of these, including the consolidation of a Social Europe. Consequently, I chose not to vote for President Barroso’s reappointment.
| null |
Astrid Lulling
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted in favour of appointing Mr Barroso as President of the European Commission. I have come to this decision for four reasons. The European Council unanimously proposed Mr Barroso’s candidacy. In my understanding of democracy, election winners can claim the right to choose one of their own. There is no other choice but Mr Barroso; no alternative solution has been seriously considered. The criticisms directed at the outgoing President are mistaken about an essential fact, namely that the Commission is able to make proposals and that it is the Member States that lay them down. My support also comes with some expectations. In the course of his second term of office, Mr Barroso should be a little more independent minded, not least with regard to the large Member States, and the sole objective of his actions should be to serve the general interest of the Community. I regret that the Commission has a tendency to evolve into a conglomerate of commissioners, free to act as they please. I would ask Mr Barroso to use his influence to counteract this evolution. I would like the institution, as ‘guardian of treaties’, to regain its original strength, in other words, its capacity to show the way with rallying projects.
| null |
Willy Meyer
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
es
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr Barroso, the President of the European Commission, is responsible for the current situation of financial, economic, food and environmental crisis in which Europe is immersed. To date, no one has recognised his error, and the blame has instead been placed on the United States. To date, the Commission has tried to build a Europe based on policies of privatisation and dismantling of the social state. The Commission adopted the Lisbon Strategy, which predicted economic growth of 3% and the creation of 20 million jobs by 2010. The failure of this strategy is clear. Despite that, the Commission is proposing to renew this strategy and continue with these policies, which are the cause of the crisis. This crisis is not a pandemic; it is the result of a gamble on one specific policy: the policy adopted by the European Commission. Its foreign policy programme makes no reference to the Sahara or Palestine. These issues are not only not its priorities, but the EU is planning to grant advanced status to the Kingdom of Morocco and to upgrade relations with the State of Israel.
| null |
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
The work carried out by President Barroso over the last five years was characterised by great pragmatism, seriousness and firmness in the way he looked after Europe’s top interests. His world leadership in combating climate change, the timeliness of increasing Europeans’ involvement with the oceans through the launch of the new European maritime policy, and his ability to generate consensus on the financial perspective in a Europe of 27 are a few examples that justify keeping him at the head of the European Commission. Economic growth, investment in innovation and training, and fighting unemployment are fundamental pillars for Europe’s integration to continue, and they are also Mr Barroso’s priorities for the future. At a time when the world economic and financial situation is not at its best, Europe needs a strong leader who can breathe life into the European project. For all the above reasons and many others, I believe Mr Barroso is the ideal president to guide the EU’s destiny in the forthcoming term of office.
| null |
Frédérique Ries
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Like 381 of my fellow Members, I supported Mr Barroso’s appointment as head of the Commission. I did so for many reasons, not least because some people are levelling particularly unfair accusations against the candidate. I hear some dream of a new Delors, while they forget that we have changed the world… and Europe. The Europe of the 12, of Kohl and Mitterrand, is no more and will doubtless never return. The first President of a Commission of 25, then of 27, Mr Barroso had the delicate task of handling the enlargement of 2004, a mandate marked by consolidation. The second will be one of ambition. I hope it will be so and I want to give him the credit for this. I want to refuse to play the game of sorcerer’s apprentice, to refuse to wait, not for Godot, but for another hypothetical candidate that the Council has no intention of putting forward. I want to refuse to wait and to further weaken our institutions and the reputation that Europe still enjoys among Europeans. So yes, we will expect him to keep his promises, such as combating climate change and discrimination, and the urgent concerted action in the face of the economic and social crisis. To postpone this vote one more time would be to bark up the wrong tree. To wait for a phantom candidate would be a mistake.
| null |
Nuno Teixeira
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
A strong, ambitious Commission Presidency is essential for Europe to regain its position as world leader by seeking a balance between economic and political goals on one hand and social and territorial cohesion on the other. Priorities must be defined pragmatically but without neglecting the values that lie at the origin of the European project. We have a number of challenges ahead, such as reforming the Community budget, which Europe must address by showing that it is able to set the world agenda on various topics including the fight against climate change and the regulation of financial markets. At a time when unemployment is soaring in several Member States, it is vital to seek a sustainable way out of the current economic and social crisis. This goal should unite the Member States around the principle of solidarity and the strengthening of the European single market. Since I believe that José Manuel Durão Barroso has the qualities that will allow him to continue to successfully fulfil the expectations that we have placed in him, since I think the fact that he holds the post is an honour for Portugal, and since I see it as an advantage for a small, isolated, distant and outermost region like Madeira to have someone in the Commission who thoroughly understands its reality, I support his new candidacy for the post of President of the European Commission.
| null |
Frank Vanhecke
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted against the re-appointment of Mr Barroso as President of the European Commission as, for the past five years, he has been the very symbol of a Commission that chose to disregard the democratic rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon and did so contemptuously and in a particularly arrogant fashion. Mr Barroso also repeatedly argued for a new wave of mass immigration and constantly played down the problems associated with the possible accession of Turkey to the EU. It is also telling that Mr Barroso yesterday refused to answer a justified question from a British Member about his intentions with regard to a European Commissioner for Human Rights – an internal one within the EU, that is. Big Brother Europe marches on, but apparently no one is to know, and that includes MEPs.
| null |
Derek Vaughan
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Although it is not the norm for me to abstain, I felt that, for today’s vote on the election of the President of the Commission, abstention was the right choice. I accept that Mr Barroso has made some concessions, for example, on the issue of social impact assessments. However, Mr Barroso has failed to show commitment in putting forward proposals of importance to the S&D Group – for example, a strengthening of the Posted Workers Directive, a directive of vital importance for the protection of Welsh workers. We also need more commitment about the portfolios given to newly appointed commissioners and a clear explanation from Mr Barroso about the organisation of the next college. I do not believe that Mr Barroso’s pledge to fight social dumping in Europe is far-reaching enough, and it is for this reason, as well as the abovementioned, that I took the decision to abstain on this vote.
| null |
Bernadette Vergnaud
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted against Mr Barroso’s candidacy, above all, because I believe in a genuinely political Europe, which cannot be satisfied with a Commission bound by the desiderata of big business. I also believe that one cannot campaign by calling for another form of European leadership only to then give a blank cheque to a champion of liberalism whose programme is sorely lacking in ambition and values. A man who has taken shelter behind the idea of ‘better regulation’ in order to ‘deregulate’ everything that I, as a socialist, defend: public services, social protection of workers, respect for health systems, regulation of the financial economy and protection of consumers and of the environment against the power of industrial groups. Out of respect for my own convictions and those of the electorate, I feel that these values cannot be called into question by ulterior motives and tricks aimed at obtaining derisory concessions from conservatives who control the majority of the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission, and who will not rest until they have furthered their deregulatory policy.
| null |
Dominique Vlasto
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Although the vote on the President of the European Commission is secret, I would like to express publicly my support for the candidate from our political family, José Manuel Barroso, and sincerely to congratulate him on his re-election. As the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) won the European elections, it is quite natural that the President of the future Commission should come from our ranks. Therefore, despite the futile unrest among the divided left and the Greens, who did not, however, have a candidate to put forward, Mr Barroso was comfortably re-elected. I also welcome his reaffirmed commitment to work in close cooperation with our Assembly, within which he can count on our determination and our support each time the proposals of our European project have to go to the vote. Parliament and the Commission will now be able to set to work without delay, which was the most important thing at this difficult time, where there are many challenges to take up swiftly for the sake of all Europeans. Moreover, while Europe is involved in the G20 and climate negotiations, it must be united and in good working order: today’s clear, unambiguous vote also strengthens it in the face of the other world powers.
| null |
Jean-Pierre Audy
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted for the European Parliament resolution of 16 September 2009 on the forest fires of summer 2009. This resolution follows numerous others highlighting the frequency, the seriousness, the complexity and the impact of natural and man-made disasters in Europe, the number of which has increased rapidly in the last few years. The forest fire phenomenon is aggravated by rural depopulation, the progressive abandonment of traditional activities, poor forest management, the existence of vast expanses of forest planted with one single species, the planting of non-adapted tree species, the absence of an effective prevention policy, the levity of penalties imposed in cases of arson, and the flawed implementation of laws forbidding illegal construction and guaranteeing reforestation. It is regrettable that, despite Parliament’s demands, the Commission has not taken steps to create a European civil protection force, and I welcome the action of my friend Mr Barnier, who has long been proposing this facility. Finally, at a time when private insurance companies do not offer fire cover for forests, it is becoming imperative, faced with the private sector’s failure to act, to consider a public/private collective instrument to insure forests against storms and fire.
| null |
Carlos Coelho
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Unfortunately, conditions of extreme drought and forest fires in southern Europe have been growing both more frequent and more intense. Immense damage has been caused in terms of loss of human life (11 people have died just this summer), reduced economic activity and environmental degradation, particularly through an increase in the rate of desertification, in that some 400 000 hectares of European forests have disappeared every year over the last decade. Climate change is contributing to the increase in natural disasters, but many cases are still unforeseeable or are caused by criminal acts. Scientific research therefore needs to be developed so as to improve risk assessment procedures, fire prevention systems and fire-fighting facilities, and the requisite financial resources must also be released. We need a European strategy to combat natural disasters, as well as greater interoperability and coordination among the various Community instruments. The Member States should enhance their cooperation and coordination so as to guarantee solidarity and the availability of additional rapid mobilisation resources to fight these disasters. I call on the Presidency of the Council to make an urgent decision on the regulation for the new Solidarity Fund, in order to increase transparency and make its mobilisation more flexible in an emergency.
| null |
Diogo Feio
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Southern Europe has been the victim of disasters (drought and fires) that have threatened human lives, economies and local ecosystems and are contributing to the gradual abandonment of extensive areas that were once populated, worked and cared for. Rather than being a problem for one country or another, this issue and its serious consequences have now become cross-border in nature and clearly deserve a response at European level. As I have said previously, the European Union will benefit if it remains united even in adversity and if it is able to mobilise resources such as the Solidarity Fund as well as systems and methods to avert the causes and mitigate the consequences of these scourges and to provide a flexible, prompt and suitable response to them. In addition to the European Commission, which should adopt a leading role in seeking solutions and implementing best practice, the whole forestry sector should be called on to share knowledge, define solutions and point to ways to help diversify the activities associated with forests. A Portuguese nursery rhyme says a tree is a friend. The European Union should repay this friendship and thus support the future of rural areas.
| null |
João Ferreira
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
The reason why I voted in favour is linked to the need for effective solidarity and the immediate mobilisation of financial resources, so as to be able, with all due urgency, to tackle the socially and environmentally tragic situation that has befallen the areas and communities affected by this summer’s fires. I believe, however, that the resolution should place greater emphasis on the effects of certain Community policies, particularly the common agricultural policy, which lead people to abandon the land and productive systems, and on activities which contribute to a preventive approach to the problem of fires. The consequences of the CAP, particularly in countries like Portugal, are among the underlying causes of the fires which today devastate vast areas of land year after year. I believe, however, that this possible and desirable cooperation among Member States in fighting forest fires should not be used to pave the way for removing important aspects of Member States’ individual sovereignty, namely in terms of civil protection and measures for controlling and intervening in their own territory.
| null |
Sylvie Guillaume
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Once again this summer, forest fires have devastated the south of France. Like our other European neighbours, our citizens have found themselves battling flames, these disasters resulting in both material damage and human suffering. This is why I have advocated the setting up of an independent and permanent European reaction force, whose task would be to assist Member States and regions affected by fires and other disasters. Equally, we need – and this is also the appeal we have made to the Commission – a strategy which allows us to conserve the rich ecosystems in our natural parks, be it the Bauges, Ardèche or Lubéron, with the whole undertaking relying on funding designed for preventive measures and actions to re-establish the damaged ecosystem. Recourse to the CAP might be justified to prevent the spread of forest fires, which are too often the result of abundant undergrowth in some areas. Finally, I have also advocated mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund, a fund that today is blocked by the Council even though it is needed desperately.
| null |
Eija-Riitta Korhola
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fi
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, in Monday’s debate on the forest fires during the summer of 2009, I said that natural conditions will alter with climate change. That is a fact that cannot be contradicted. It does not, however, explain environmental disasters, especially if the same phenomena recur every few years. We can and must be better prepared. That is why I had to vote against my group’s position today with regard to Amendment 5 and, to be perfectly honest, that position puzzles me greatly. It really is time the Member States of the Union took a look in the mirror. One feels fully justified in saying that the destruction caused by forest fires could have been prevented if certain Member States had developed and implemented more effective preventive measures and worked harder to stop criminal activity in the acquisition of more land to build on. Our political environment cannot be one where people close their eyes to the facts. This benefits nobody, especially when it concerns the scale of the human tragedy resulting from forest fires. It has been suggested that climate change is one cause of the increase in the number of forest fires, and it is true that Europe will have to prepare for longer forest fire seasons than just June to September which, until now, has been the norm. Summers are beginning earlier and they are warmer and drier, especially in the south, and the risk of fires is therefore growing. The problem of fires itself, however, lies not in any progressive change to natural conditions, but elsewhere. It is one thing to adapt to the changing environment; it is quite another to accept rigid bad practices and be unprepared.
| null |
Willy Meyer
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
es
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
In Greece, 130 000 olive trees were destroyed by the fires, as well as many hectares of vines, cattle, beekeeping holdings, storehouses, stables and a large number of greenhouses and houses. In Spain, 95 769 hectares have been burnt by forest fires, causing 11 deaths and estimated losses of EUR 395 million. The social, economic and environmental damage caused by the fires to local economies, productive activity and tourism is huge, rendering necessary support for affected citizens and the re-establishment of previous environmental conditions through immediate national and Community intervention. We urge the Commission to mobilise the current EU Solidarity Fund without delay and make available the resources needed for the purpose of supporting rehabilitation plans for the affected areas, the restoration of their productive potential and the full reforestation of the burnt areas. The deforestation is partly due to the construction of roads and railway lines. The Commission must promote measures so that public works financed by EU funds include an amount of public investment for the improvement, maintenance and increase of public forest.
| null |
Andreas Mölzer
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
de
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Unfortunately, the summer of 2009 was marked by devastating forest fires in southern Europe, which caused huge material and ecological damage. It was clear in this context that arsonists, who profit by destroying forests, are encouraged by shortcomings in or the lack of forest registers, or by poorly defined land use. It was therefore important in this motion for a resolution to call on the Member States to revise or amend these registers. In addition to reforestation, cooperation between experts, fire brigades and other groups deployed is required both in emergencies and for prevention. This motion for a resolution contains logical proposals, such as how the Member States can be supported in a disaster in accordance with the principle of solidarity. That is why I voted for the joint motion for a resolution on the forest fires in the summer of 2009.
| null |
Frédérique Ries
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
We must say straightaway that preventing natural disasters and adapting to climate change is not an easy task. Even if the European Union fares somewhat better than other regions of the world with the creation of a strengthened civil protection mechanism and the financial godsend represented by the Solidarity Fund, more than 600 000 hectares are destroyed each year. I am not just talking about the forest fires in the Mediterranean Basin, the worst of which were those of summer 2009 in the uplands around Athens. For me, two proposals seem essential to improve the situation. Firstly, Mr Barnier’s report of 2006 on a European civil protection force must be implemented in full. We are still waiting for the European green helmets to be set up to give substance to a European policy for civil protection voted for by citizens. Secondly, it is important for the Commission to have a right to oversee what is happening locally. It would be surprising to say the least if European grants were paid when some forest fires were probably started by criminals with the sole aim of preparing the land for development.
| null |
Joanna Senyszyn
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
I voted in favour of the resolution on forest fires. So far this year, over 200 000 hectares of forest have been destroyed by fire in the European Union. That is more than in the whole of 2008! In Poland, the coefficient of the threat of forest fires is one of the highest in Europe. In April 2009, the number of fires was the highest in five years. We must take urgent and effective measures to counter climate change, which is one of the causes of the fires. Another important issue in the adopted resolution is that of coordinating EU mechanisms for the prevention of climate change and, in particular, the effective use of the Solidarity Fund to limit the consequences of fires. We need to set up a European reaction force capable of acting quickly in case of natural disasters. This would be a financial and organisational completion of the actions undertaken in the Member States. I hope that the Parliamentary resolution on fighting the effects of fires will be duly considered by the European Commission and mobilised to intensify its own actions in this field.
| null |
Catherine Stihler
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Explanations of voteVideo of the speechesPV
|
Today's debate on forest fires in welcomed. The devastation to many sites of natural beauty is a loss to us all. We must show solidarity with our colleagues and help the countries affected.
| null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.