Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.1.2-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Sweden is sometimes described as a well organised but not particularly exciting country. That is a picture which fits in quite well with Sweden’s six-month presidency of the EU.
From an organisational point of view, the presidency has operated well. Swedish diplomats have worked assiduously at cobbling together various compromises. From a political point of view, it has had a low profile.
has been done to show that Sweden is a loyal EU member – loyal both to the EU system and towards the large countries that dominate the European Union. This became most obvious of all when the Irish voted against the Treaty of Nice. Mr Persson immediately made it clear that the Irish people would not be allowed to make use of their right to put a stop to more centralised government and supranationalism within the EU. The Treaty of Nice was to remain in place. This is, in practice, an attack on every small country’s right to prevent changes to the Treaty if it wishes to do so.
Sometimes, compromises have been made at any price. The new rules concerning access to documents were so weak that journalists’ organisations in Europe thought that the current rules were better.
In the run-up to the presidency, Sweden prioritised enlargement, employment and environmental issues. The presidency has worked hard on enlargement. The pace has been maintained in the negotiations governing how the candidate countries are to be brought into line with the EU’s regulations. This was important if enlargement was not to be delayed.
The EU’s policy of increased employment is often singled out as a ‘left-wing project’ designed to counteract the right-wing policy of the currency union. The issue was discussed at the Stockholm Summit, but the only practical decision remembered from that occasion was a decision concerning the deregulation of the financial market. That is not much in the way of left-wing policy.
In the environmental area, the presidency has had some bad luck. Work on the most important environmental problem – the climate issue – was effectively sabotaged by the new president of the United States. At the Göteborg Summit, there was an opportunity to adopt a sound strategy for sustainable development but, when it came to the crunch, the most radical environmental demands had been removed from the text.
In some areas, the presidency has had great success. In addition to the enlargement negotiations, the decision to remove duties for the poorest countries of all is a clear step forwards. The presidency’s work in combating trafficking in women and in pursuit of peace in the Balkans is also commendable. As usual, however, many of the important decisions are being taken in what is more like secrecy. Sweden has loyally done further work on the militarisation of the EU and thus, in practice, in favour of the abolition of Sweden’s policy of neutrality.
During the period concerned, Sweden and the other Nordic countries have entered into the Schengen Agreement, which is the EU’s most important tool for constructing tough new borders to keep out those who live outside the European Union. This area is a real blot on the Swedish presidency’s copybook. Sweden voted in favour of the proposed fines in the case of transporter’s liability, a proposal that involves a kind of privatisation of asylum policy, which in turn would mean that airlines and other carriers would be penalised if they did not screen out refugees who did not have their papers in order when they made their way to the EU. At the start of the presidency, Mr Persson stood here and talked of a refugee policy characterised by solidarity. We can only regret that, since then, the government has, in practice, taken the opposite line.
Finally, a few words about Göteborg, where small militant groups took the opportunity to attack the police and cause extensive damage. Irrespective of what these groups purport to stand for, this is behaviour that can never be defended. Throwing stones and causing damage is not politics but criminal behaviour. That must not, however, conceal the fact that, in Göteborg, there were also
of people demonstrating in a peaceful and dignified manner for a better Europe than today’s EU with its EMU and Schengen. What 50 000 people do is, in actual fact, more important than what 300 perpetrators of violence get up to."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Everything"1
"tens of thousands"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples