Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.2.3-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I was anxious to comply with the new rules governing the organisation of debates by drawing the conclusions myself on behalf of my group. Not everyone, I am sorry to say, has taken the same decision.
I should like to make three observations. The first relates to the completion of the enlargement negotiations. I agree with what has been said about the timetable. Deferring or rushing the final stage of the negotiating process would have destabilising political consequences; in other words, the political price would be too high. I cannot agree, on the other hand, with what has been said about the Commission’s proposals regarding the agricultural budget and agricultural aid. Mr Rasmussen spoke of reasonable proposals, Mr Prodi of the “only possible basis”. We should be aware, however – and you are aware – that these proposals are seen as discriminatory in the countries of central Europe and as a danger signal from the European Union. Similarly, certain other economic aspects of established Community law and practice are considered by the people of those countries to be excessively severe restraints. One need only follow the political debate in Poland. The chosen solution does not seem to be the best way to create a more stable and united Europe, which is the aim of enlargement.
My second remark, of a more general nature, could be summed up in the phrase ‘Be wary when things are too quiet’. Mr Prodi, your reading of the Eurobarometer has been selective. I believe you are clutching at straws. If there really is a broad consensus, why should strategic decisions be postponed until after the French and German elections? Why be afraid of the Irish referendum? In fact, as we all know, there is a great deal of friction between the European authorities and the people of Europe. I am convinced that this problem has to be tackled head-on and that the public must be given the opportunity to become far more actively involved in the shaping of European policy and, to this end, in developing a set of policies that can motivate and mobilise people and foster solidarity among them. This is a vital challenge that our Union must meet.
Finally, I believe the debate has been very interesting in many respects, but it has been rather superficial on the role of the Union in the world. Let me cite three examples. Only a vague reference was made to Africa. At the G8 Summit, the action plan for Africa was mentioned, which the Africans estimated to be worth USD 64 billion. But no funds have ever been committed. In the European Union itself, the Cotonou Agreement has not yet been ratified by all fifteen Member States, so it cannot enter into force. We must step up a gear. My second example is the Earth Summit in Johannesburg and its implications for our entire planet. Here too, the preparations for the summit have come up against financial issues and run the risk of failure. What initiatives do you think the Union should take? My third example relates to the transatlantic links you cited, Mr President-in-Office, without a word on unilateralism or on the incredible decision made by the US Administration to hold the UN and the Balkan peace process to ransom in a bid to obtain immunity from international justice. I believe we ought to have heard your thoughts on all of these points."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples