Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.2.3-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the rotating presidency is one of the most unusual characteristics of the European Union. Every six months, it is as if we were starting all over again, recalling the same spirit – nothing more and nothing less.
The path that has brought us to this point, enabling us to achieve what was unthinkable 50 years ago, is the same basic path – and not some other path that we might have attempted to go down – that the present Member States and others that may be part of Europe in the future will be able to follow still further. The sensation of starting afresh is, of course, in many ways illusory. If we had a different Europe every six months, this would hardly be compatible with the continuity of dossiers. Nevertheless, it is a mechanism that allows for fresh new approaches and which reminds us of what Europe is based on: a partnership of states, a Europe of nations.
I hope that the Portuguese Government’s expectations will become a reality, be it in a creative and lasting fusion of the Luxembourg, Cardiff and Cologne processes, in our relations with Africa, in advancing the modernisation dossiers – the information society and digital television – or in assisting the ultra-peripheral regions.
I am pleased that in general we are being more daring as regards economic and social cohesion for the future, as this is a key objective of the Treaties that we are a long way from achieving, and it is also one of the objectives that is most attractive to the enlargement countries. We recommend prudence combined with realism in launching the Intergovernmental Conference. The key question in the debate on Europe today is participation: effective participation by the public, and keeping pace with real public opinion in the Member States. Various references have been made to the low turnout in the European elections. This does not call into question the legitimacy of this Parliament, but it should make us all the more humble when it comes to democracy, and curb our urges to transform the nature of the EU or the structure of the Treaties and their checks and balances. Rather than changing everything, we should be trying to improve what we have, starting here in this House, with the way we debate, vote, convey our opinions, communicate and conduct our relations with our colleagues in the national parliaments. I think a certain amount of modesty is required. For that reason, I do not go along with the suggestions that Parliament’s opinion could be delayed as a reaction against alleged shortcomings in the statute. That would be deeply irresponsible, as that is not what is at stake. The real issue, given that we are dealing with treaty amendments, is the lack of advance participation by national parliaments, an area in which we will be following the progress of the presidency programme with interest. The problem here is that there are only two observers, from the major political groups, instead of one from every group. The problem of participation should be solved by widening participation, not by insisting on more of the same old faces.
I must not finish without making two crucial observations about recent events. Today, speaking as one Portuguese to another, I am not speaking in a spirit of criticism, but rather one of unavoidable disagreement. Firstly, disagreement with the decision taken not to extend the embargo on arms to Indonesia. This is a deplorable and deeply inappropriate decision. It seems that we are already forgetting about the bodies that are still being dug up in East Timor, about the remaining sources of uncertainty, and about the cynical duplicity of the Indonesian military authorities. What has happened is something we have always criticised: the utter weakness of a decision taken in haste instead of under clear conditions.
Secondly, we also disagree with the recent statement on Angola. This is another deplorable act. It is biased, unbalanced, and will not help to resolve a tragic and protracted conflict. Although we do not think that UNITA has done much to earn our respect in recent years, this does not mean that we support war, and that we are unaware of the very serious accusations about a murky war economy which is damaging for Angola itself. It does not mean that we prefer a party which is aiding or even collaborating in the pillaging of resources and prevailing over the misfortune of a people who have suffered decades of war, nor does it mean that we accept the criticisms coming from outside the country, which are unacceptably biased.
There can only be one objective for Angola, and that is peace; there is only one way to achieve it, and that is a peaceful one; and there is only one subject of debate, which is humanitarian radicalism. None of the sides involved in the war in Angola can justify the suffering to which its people have been subjected. Absolutely not! However, since I have now commented on this important aspect, I would like to wish the Portuguese Presidency every success."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples