Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.3.2-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President of the Commission, may I say to you on behalf of my group that we very much support the point of departure, the core of the analysis and the strategy that you bring to this House today: that is that the stakes now are irrefutably political. They are political because we are moving on. Even though we have not yet finished constructing all the economic building blocks, we are moving on from that kind of functionalist building of Europe to a much more challenging political perspective.
The challenge of enlargement is political. The challenge of creating an area of justice and home affairs, of dealing with asylum and immigration and crime, is very political. The challenge of a common foreign security and defence policy is very political. Because it is political it is more complex. Because it is political it is more sovereignty-sensitive. Because it is more sovereignty-sensitive it is more voter-and citizen-sensitive. We need, therefore, to find a way forward towards these political ends and objectives, to address, not merely the scepticism but the greatest enemy, the apathy which you identify.
The means of achieving this are difficult but they are real. I applaud your view that we need more synergy between our institutions, not just between Commission and Parliament, but also between these and the Council to underscore the extent of the political challenge. We need more dialogue, not just with each other but also with civil society. We need more explanation of what Europe is about. We need to be able to confront fears and anxieties, because in many instances the greatest fear is fear itself. Perhaps with more dialogue and explanation we can overcome some of that.
My group is especially attracted to the creative possibilities you signal in regard to the prospect of a White Paper next spring addressing the issue of governance. As we look at the Europe of networking which you describe, it is very important that Europe concentrates on its core business, that we have the courage to suggest areas where Europe may perhaps stand back. That could convince people that Europe, in its governance, is not something run exclusively from Brussels, which concentrates and soaks up more powers, more decisions, more authority. That is the political core of the challenge and I think you have identified it well before this House today.
For my group, enlargement is the first priority against which all the other possibilities for reform must be measured, be they governance, be they the intergovernmental conference, be they reform of the institutions.
We see enlargement as a process of partnership, not a process of "them and us". We see enlargement as a positive sum gain for member and candidate states. I suggest to the Commission, as a repository of an enormous amount of detailed information on enlargement, to present a document, that explains the value of enlargement, not just in budgetary and financial terms but in a broader sense; a document, like the Cecchini report before the Single Act, that explains to people in a way which engages them in the debate that this is the grand, historic challenge facing Europe today. We need to be able to prepare that ground carefully.
On south-eastern Europe, I agree with your view that we measure political institutions through their achievements. In the lifetime of this Commission and this Parliament we must succeed in the task of winning the difficult and uneasy peace in south-eastern Europe. We applaud the stabilisation and association agreements, but we would like to see more. We will publish this material and bring it forward in the debate on the Swoboda report later this week.
The strategic paper emphasises the global role of the European Union. Our central aim must be to give the Union a weight in global affairs commensurate with its weight in terms of aid, trade and finance. At the beginning of this decade we must foresee how our institutions will develop internationally by its end, and notably where we fit into international monetary bodies, where we fit into UN agencies and so on. We need to open that debate.
In conclusion, this morning, the day after St Valentine's Day, the newspapers are saying that your honeymoon period is over. I do not know whether you are a romantic or not, Mr Prodi. Perhaps this is a very unromantic thing to say on such a morning. However, we in the Liberal Group welcome this because it means we are now settling down to business. That is the way it should be. Regarding the many adjectival descriptions of Europe you addressed in your speech – an energetic Europe, an enterprising Europe, a Europe that has a human face and is inclusive – let me, in a word dear to the heart of my Liberal colleagues, give in one adjective, one description of the kind of Europe we want to see in your plan for governance: an enabling Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples