Jacques Delors Quotes

The European model is in danger if we obliterate the principle of personal responsibility.

My problem is how to find the best way of being useful.

My objective is that before the end of the millennium Europe should have a true federation. The Commission should become a political executive which can define essential common interests... responsible before the European Parliament and before the nation-states represented how you will, by the European Council or by a second chamber of national parliaments.

...within ten years 80% of our economic legislation, perhaps even fiscal and social as well' would come from the EU.

We will have to create an avant-garde.... We could have a Union for the enlarged Europe, and a Federation for the avant-garde.

I cannot resign myself to the decline of Europe, and of France.

This weakening is worsened by the widening distance between the governed and their governments.

The European model is, first, a social and economic system founded on the role of the market, for no computer in the world can process information better than the market.

The problem of how we finance the welfare state should not obscure a separate issue: if each person thinks he has an inalienable right to welfare, no matter what happens to the world, that's not equity, it's just creating a society where you can't ask anything of people.

Therefore one should speak at the same time of national citizenship and wider European citizenship.

The unions may continue to decline, but if they do, it'll be their fault.

Yes, the European model remains superior to that of America and Japan.

For me, socialism has always been about liberty and solidarity, but also about responsibility.

The driving force behind the liberal counter-offensive in Europe has been a reaction against irresponsibility.

We have to struggle against the conservatives from all sides, not only the right-wingers, but also the left-wing conservatives who don't want to change anything.

This desire for equity must not lead to an excess of welfare, where nobody is responsible for anything.

The problem with a purely collective system is not only that it requires economic growth, and the right sort of demographic trends, but that it prevents people thinking about their futures in a responsible way.

Even in Britain, the trade unions tell me that employment contracts have less protection than in the past.

These days there are not enough of such intermediary groups, between the state and the individual, with the result that political leaders are often unduly guided by opinion polls.

Cinema explains American society. It's like a Western, with good guys and bad guys, where the weak don't have a place.

If you don't have collective agreements between unions and employers, governments have to legislate more.

The unions still have a job to do, representing their members' interests to governments and parliaments. And I think collective agreements still have a role, alongside markets and laws.

I would not be opposed to devising a new system of pensions, in which one part was based on collective provision, but which also gave incentives for people to take out an additional, personal plan.

My presidential victory, if it had happened, would have been artificial in relation to the Socialist party. It may be that on my deathbed, I will come to regret my decision, but for the moment, I live at peace with it.

Any union that can't accept workers choosing their own representatives through universal franchise is finished.