Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.5.2-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, this morning’s debate on enlargement has revealed considerable convergence of approaches and methods as well. Moreover, it was observed on several occasions that enlargement is not just a matter of extending the Union geographically, economically and politically, of integrating 10, 12 or maybe 13 countries, mainly in Central and Eastern Europe, which have survived the tragic experience of 50 years of communism, but that, in enlargement, the Union itself is at stake.
There you are, focusing on these issues – strengthening the euro, adapting the institutions and a genuinely common foreign and security policy – will give the European project what it lacks today and what enlargement requires of us.
It was President Prodi, in what is probably his best speech as President which he delivered at the University of Lublin, who said and I quote, “European integration is dependent on a shared understanding of what policy goals should be pursued in the Union”.
This does not, of course, simply mean that we must monitor carefully the candidate countries’ respect for the three Copenhagen criteria: freedom, democracy and human rights, a competitive market economy able to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union, and gradual incorporation of the Community acquis which, as Commissioner Verheugen pointed out this morning, also requires full incorporation of European law, which has proved to be maybe the most difficult part of the process for the candidate countries.
No, it is indeed a question of discussing, rethinking and reviving a European project all over again. Neither can we expect immediately, so to speak, an easy outcome of the reforms, which are sometimes just institutional hot air. As both Commissioner Barnier and Commissioner Lamy rightly observed, we cannot discuss the institutional reforms if we do not first define a political project. Implementation cannot precede conception or else we will become so used to not saying what Europe does that we will not even know what Europe is.
What, then, is the project on which we should initially focus the debate of Parliament’s, the only genuinely democratic institution and maybe the only institution which is capable of involving the public as well?
A Europe which has a federal currency, an intergovernmental defence policy and an open economic market area clearly has considerable potential, but also areas of considerable confusion. Some are of the opinion that these areas of confusion can be resolved by drawing up another document following on from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in other words a genuine Constitution; others wonder whether we really need a European Constitution, a form of constitutional patriotism based on the German model which is supposed to provide patriotism which would not otherwise exist.
For others, at the heart of the project lies enhancing and increasing economic cooperation around the euro, and, more then any other characteristic, this would make Europe’s relationship with globalisation clear and would indicate our ability to be a genuinely global force, at least at European level. For still others, the core concern, the crux of the matter is the need for a foreign and security policy which is truly common.
Well then, if I may focus on this point for a moment, the debate which took place just this morning on the Middle East revealed that this is, if not the heart of the project, certainly the centre of our difficulties. Commissioner Patten rightly said, this morning, that we feel that we have been frustrated in our desire to contribute to the peace process or, to be more accurate, the resumption of negotiations or, more precisely still, cease-fires in Palestine, by the events which have been repeated during the last few hours.
I am, of course, pleased to hear that anti-Semitic school books are not being financed with European funds, but, frankly, I do not think that this should be the focal point of the debate we must initiate within the Union. What is missing is politics, political decisions, political action such as, for example with regard to the Middle East, the accession of Israel to the European Union as proposed so often by our radical friends and others. This decision would genuinely change the course of events, providing a new security policy and, at the same time, committing Israel and the entire region to it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples