Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.3.2-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In this spirit, we are absolutely determined, Mr President, to ensure that the negotiations undertaken with each candidate country are continued and intensified. We shall carry out our work in this field as quickly and as well as possible, with a view, I would stress, as President Prodi said just now, to enlarging as quickly as possible.
The second risk of globalisation which has also been mentioned is the serious threat to the world’s ecosystem. As soon as one seeks to maximise profits, which is understandable to a certain extent because profits are a factor in progress, but as soon as one seeks to maximise profits without real restrictions that are internationally acknowledged and imposed in order to prevent excesses, then there comes a time when the damage inflicted on nature is such that it is no longer able to regenerate. It is not obvious, but it is a real problem, which must be taken seriously.
The typical example mentioned by a number of speakers was the Hague Conference to be held in autumn on greenhouse gas emissions. If, as seems likely and even highly likely, scientists’ conclusions indicate that these emissions present serious risks to the ecological balance of our planet, thus seriously compromising the legacy we are leaving to future generations, then there are grounds for carefully researching ways to control these emissions. For, as things stand at present, it is true to say that globalisation is going in exactly the opposite direction to this.
The final disadvantage, the final risk of globalisation, involves everything related to large-scale crime. With the development of globalisation and advanced technology, with the Net, we can clearly see a trend for the considerable development of cybercrime in all areas: drugs, terrorism, crime of every kind.
Therefore, globalisation does entail risks, but what exactly does that mean? It means that we cannot challenge globalisation as such, because it is going to spread, whatever we do. We have to make the best of it, and this can be done by controlling it and giving it a human face, which means that we must be aware of the risks it involves. This is the clear message that all major institutions, particularly the European Union and its institutions, must send out throughout the world.
This answer is also addressed to Mr Wurtz who also mentioned these problems, along with others, of course, particularly with regard to the Europe of the citizens. I of course share his feeling that Europe must be first and foremost a Europe of the citizens. We must respond to the concerns of everyday life. We do not do this enough, that is true, even though, in my opinion, a great deal of progress has been made in this area. The social debates which have been underway for three or four years now within the European Union could not have taken place seven or eight or ten years ago, when they would not even have been considered. So, there has been some progress.
I have expressed my views on globalisation. I do not believe, Mr President, that Fortress Europe is any sort of ambition or, indeed, any sort of reality. Europe is open, by definition. Europe’s commitment is to supporting a range of values, a culture and an identity which represents, I would say, the synthesis of the cultures and identities of each of the nations in Europe, hence the importance of maintaining cultural diversity and defending each European nation’s right to retain its own culture, identity and language. On this basis, union, according to the old adage of strength through unity, is the only way to safeguard these cultures and identities in future when confronted with the multipolar world which is developing today and which is universally in evidence. Tomorrow, we will be faced with a vast China, a vast India, a large South-East Asia and an organised South America, not to mention North America. It is quite clear that if we are content to remain where we are now, divided to a greater or lesser extent, then we shall purely and simply vanish. It is only by being united and, at the same time, retaining our own identities that we will be able to survive and, in this context, we must not be a fortress but we must, nevertheless, combine our forces and our efforts.
Finally, Mr Wurtz mentioned the notorious Tobin tax
I should just like to tell him that the reform of the international monetary system is on the agenda, as he well knows, and that, clearly, we must combat the instability of the financial markets. That is obvious, and I am, of course, committed to this. It is one of the subjects we shall also be discussing at the G7 meeting in Okinawa. In this spirit, I am willing to admit that we shall have to look closely into all the possible means of achieving this twofold objective of stability and equity, adopting an open-minded and realistic approach.
For a long time now I been taking not of Charles Pasqua’s comments on gastronomy, and indeed on other matters, and so I was very interested to hear him speak, there is no question of that, even if I did not completely recognise the Europe that we are building together from his remarks and description. Clearly, we are not looking at matters from the same perspective.
There is no doubt about it. The point of constructing Europe in the first place was to establish peace, and to cause it to take root, after so many pointless fratricidal wars; establishing peace and, consequently, democracy, since they go together. Peace and democracy cannot be established within just one part of Europe, they must be established throughout the whole of Europe. We can discuss Europe’s frontiers afterwards – that is another matter – but peace and democracy must apply to the whole of Europe.
In particular, he brought up the word ‘federal’ or ‘federation’ many times in his speech. This is an old and very French argument that we have had in France and, indeed, it is based on the fact that the meaning we give this word in France differs from that given in other languages, especially German, and this interpretation has led to misunderstandings that have, of course, degenerated into arguments.
Both Charles Pasqua and I have served a man who we admired greatly, President Georges Pompidou, who was accustomed to saying, as he did not appreciate pointless arguments, “Federation, confederation or a federation, it is all a con federation in the end”.
Perhaps it was a rather provocative thing to say, but there was also an element of Cantal or Auvergne good sense behind this comment. I would make a friendly suggestion that Charles Pasqua thinks about this.
Mr de Gaulle will probably understand that I do not share his views. Once again I heard him out, but let me take the liberty of saying that there is one right that I am not prepared to grant him, and that is the right to claim to be speaking on behalf of General de Gaulle.
Last but not least, Mr Saint-Josse mentioned a number of matters which have already been touched upon, and I should just like to pick out one or two of the arguments he pointed out.
Firstly, cultural diversity and implementation of the principle of subsidiarity. I unreservedly endorse the expression of this necessity, and the spirit thereof. It is true that our cultural diversity is a source of wealth, and that the principle of subsidiarity is an absolute necessity. Decisions must be taken at the right level. Let us not go back over the past, or over a few examples that would make easy targets. In order for the principle of subsidiarity to be properly applied, however, we need standard rules. I am thinking of a specific decision taken by the Commission, and subsequently challenged, particularly on grounds of non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. I observe, however, that it was the governments that asked the Commission to take this decision in the first place.
Enlargement, then, is not just a moral requirement of candidate countries, but is also in the fundamental interest of a Europe that one wishes to see existing tomorrow, based on the principles of peace, democracy, human rights and freedoms.
There is therefore some ambiguity, if you will, and the more of us there are, the more essential it will be to enforce strict application of the principle of subsidiarity. This, of course, means that there must be a standard set of rules to avoid any sort of ambiguity. I repeat, and I said this in Berlin in another context and from another angle, we must be able to identify clearly who is responsible for doing what, otherwise it just will not work, as we saw in the example I mentioned just now.
We must make ready to state clearly what Europe is doing, what each of the nations that make up Europe is doing, and what, within the nations, a number of administrative levels participating in the political and human life of these nations are doing. I am thinking, for example, of the German
but there are, of course, many other examples that could be cited.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to have had the opportunity to make a few comments on the very interesting contributions made by the representatives of this House, and I thank you for the welcome you have given me here today.
Mr Lannoye specifically mentioned the problem of closer cooperation. I have just answered this. He also mentioned the state of the world today in terms which, I must admit, moved me and which I endorse. It is true that we live in a world where the gap between rich and poor is increasing. The UNDP report for 1999, by which I mean not the report tabled this year but last year, gave an example which, although not significant, is still striking, saying that the three largest private fortunes in the world today are equivalent to the sum of the gross national products of all the least developed countries, representing 600 million people. What is more, it can be observed that this phenomenon is on the increase, and so is the resulting exclusion, and this is one of the main dangers of today’s world.
Major debates are underway on the subject of globalisation, as Mr Lannoye pointed out. I am not, of course, going to enter into such a debate right now, even though Europe cannot remain apart from these debates, and so the Presidency, like the Commission and Parliament, must necessarily get involved. Globalisation is clearly inescapable and inevitable and is, for the most part, the result of the development of techniques and technology. It also provides some advantages because it does facilitate trade and, nowadays, trade is the greatest creator of wealth. It does, therefore, have positive aspects, which it would be foolish to deny.
It also has dangers, however, in three areas in particular. Firstly, the danger we have just mentioned: the exclusion of those who cannot go as fast as the others. This is true in terms of the citizens within a single country and today we can observe an increase in exclusion despite strong growth and declining unemployment. It is also true in terms of nations, where we can see rich counties getting even richer and poor countries, alas, becoming even poorer, as Mr Lannoye said just now.
This is a shift in world society to which we must be very attentive and which we cannot, of course, accept. The subject is to be discussed, moreover, in the near future in G7 and G8, but it is a subject of concern to everyone, especially Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples