Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-17-Speech-1-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011217.3.1-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, I would like to echo the comments made by my fellow Members regarding the wonderful spirit of cooperation that you have fostered between the Council and Parliament over the last six months.
I shall now turn to the Laeken Declaration. We cannot fail to acknowledge that the Laeken Declaration is an important step along the road towards a re-designed, more transparent, more comprehensible and more democratic European Union. I also believe that it will be more efficient and stronger at international level. All these positive assessments are justified by the fact that a new dynamic has now been set in motion. We have observed the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice, which were major disappointments. We now know that we have an opportunity to make a success of the new Intergovernmental Conference. If we work hard at the forthcoming summit – and the spirit of a joint undertaking that you introduced shows great potential in my view – I believe that the Convention, its open mandate, the working method that will be adopted, and the personality of those who will represent us there will enable us to reach an outcome that is extremely positive for the European Union. Therefore, do not spoil our fun, even though we could voice some misgivings about the lack of female representation, which I believe is extremely regrettable, in the triumvirate that will guide the Convention’s work
even though it is regrettable that the European Parliament does not have sufficient representation, I think that, overall, we have a good starting point. I would also like to thank you for all the effort that you have made in this area.
You mentioned your six-month Presidency. I have, however, been a Member of the European Parliament for a number of years now, and I notice that all the presidencies are disappointed when they reach the end of their mandate, particularly in the second half of the year, because it is much shorter than the first due to holidays, and also because the Presidency does not do everything in the European Union – fortunately, that is. The Presidency greatly depends on the good will of the other Member States; it depends on the work of the Commission and Parliament. Do not be overly disappointed. Personally speaking, I am rather disappointed about some aspects, I have to say, but I think that even if the events of 11 September had not happened, you would not have been able to complete all your projects.
Having said that, the dramatic events of 11 September did happen. And combating terrorism became a fundamental theme. In this respect, I think that the prevention of terrorism is an area that we must consider extremely carefully and in which we must take action. It is a matter of regret to me that the Council’s final text does not send a message to the United States. This is something I want to make very clear. There is a positive message stating that ‘we re-affirm our solidarity’ which is fine. Perhaps, though, a more political message should have been added, to express our regret at the attitude of the American Government regarding two important aspects related to world peace and terrorism. For example, I think that the withdrawal from the treaty on antiballistic missiles, announced by President Bush, is a serious political error that threatens world peace. I also feel that blocking the Convention’s work on banning bacteriological weapons in Geneva in November, because of the United States’ refusal to accept controls on their territory, is also a political error, and even a mistake. I think that the European Union should send a message to the American Government to ask it to change its mind.
Lastly, I would like to mention two important meetings, because the day after tomorrow will be better than today, but before the day after tomorrow, we have to deal with tomorrow. In particular, there is the Johannesburg conference next September, which will evaluate what has happened in the ten years since the Rio conference. Ten years have passed – that we must realise, and all we need to do is to re-read the Commission’s texts to convince ourselves that we – the rich, industrialised countries – have not succeeded in changing the way we produce or consume food so as to promote sustainability for the planet. We have not succeeded. This means that strong initiatives must be taken in this area.
The Gothenburg Summit took place, which was promising, and there were several positive aspects, particularly Kyoto, which was saved thanks to the initiative of the Belgian Presidency and the European Commission, in spite of the negative attitude, once again, of the United States. But the Kyoto protocol is no more than one tool of many, and is even a rather disappointing tool in terms of its initial ambitions. I do not think, however, that we will achieve the concrete results in Johannesburg that we will have obtained in the fight against the greenhouse effect, or in the protection of biodiversity. There is a whole range of dossiers on which we have even regressed somewhat.
As for world poverty, you said yourself, Mr President, that the gap between the north and south has not diminished and instead has become even wider. I therefore feel that we need to make a considerable effort in this area."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples