Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.1.3-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I will respond briefly to certain questions which I feel are extremely important: briefly not least because I was very pleased to see the extensive support for the enlargement process, which really has united almost the whole of Parliament in the political operation which I consider to be by far the most important part of my entire mandate and the mandate of my Commission. I cannot think of anything else which is as valuable in both human and political terms as what we are doing.
I will therefore start by responding briefly to Mr Modrow. Mr Modrow, the appeal to the will of the people for support for enlargement might not have been as successfully carried out as it could have been, as in all political processes, but what I found most remarkable, what struck me the most, was this new striving to implement the principles of democracy, solidarity and respect for minorities which has transformed Eastern Europe. It has been an extraordinary experience for me to witness the continuous endeavours of the parties in the parliaments of these countries, parties which might be at loggerheads over other issues but which are in agreement regarding enlargement. I am sorry that we are in disagreement on this very fundamental point.
Enlargement has been treated as an ethical and political matter as well as an economic matter. Indeed, in many cases, although the economic dimension has been discussed, this great sense of turning over a new page in our history, this great sense of having unified Europe – not reunified but unified Europe, for Europe has never been united – is extraordinarily powerful. We have – I repeat this too time and time again, and I learned it in the parliament of one of the countries soon to become part of our Union – unified Europe on a different basis, which means we can attract smaller countries too, we can attract minorities as well, for ours is a Union of minorities, it is a Union where no one person or body is in command: that is the immense, unique splendour of Europe.
Mr Poettering and Mr Barón Crespo mentioned two important elements. Firstly, the need to take the final step as regards the financial framework. There is no alternative – we cannot jeopardise this great historic process for the sake of EUR 3 per head. Clearly, Parliament and we at the Commission must push for these last steps to be completed. Secondly, the problem raised by Mr Barón Crespo of how to avoid the candidate countries becoming net contributors. We should also be showing a minimum of solidarity with purely formal measures. I reiterate: let us take stock of the situation. As the last speaker said, it is a question merely of a few euro per inhabitant. That is not asking much. Just now, I read out the figure which the Member States will receive under the cohesion chapter and how that differs from the amount the new countries will receive. There are reasons for that discrepancy – life is complicated, we have limited budgets – but it is a discrepancy which we do not condone, which offends our sense of solidarity.
Moreover, as Mr Bigliardo pointed out, we clearly have to behave with the same solidarity in the future towards the Objective 1 regions. That was our aim in not rushing into a mathematical calculation to produce a figure for the accession of the new Member States but, once again, waiting in order to be able to resolve the issue within a politically appropriate and intelligent way.
My last comment concerns the issues of the provision of information and the citizens’ appreciation – matters raised by Mrs Maij-Weggen and Mrs Maes. We need to make a greater effort to reassure our citizens and the citizens of the Member States. Mrs Maes explored individual, specific areas such as enlargement and poverty, minorities and the economic crisis. I have to say that the Commission launched a communication strategy as early as the beginning of 2000: all the questions and answers which we have received today have been posted on the Internet in all the languages. For this campaign, for 28 countries, we set aside EUR 150 million for a period of five years. This is a modest affair, then – we are prevented from having recourse to the mass media by the limited size of the budget. This provision of information is carried out in cooperation with the Member States and, most importantly, using the structures of civil society and supporting them by using them to promote our action. Nevertheless, the campaign will not have the desired effects if the political leaders of the Member States do not work together with us to set up a debate on these issues, as Mr Rovsing said in his speech on this matter. Clearly, therefore, I am calling for Member States’ campaigns to be given more support, and maybe we could use some of the resources earmarked for 2004 and 2005 in 2003, which will be the busiest year.
I have to say, however – and I apologise to Parliament for this – that the new Eurobarometer statistics only reached me this morning because they were only published this morning, and that they are remarkably more encouraging than those I read out a few hours ago. People usually present statistics to Parliament which are better than the reality, but, in this case, I had come with statistics which were actually less encouraging. These new statistics reveal a radical change, which is due to the fact that the matter has been debated, that the press have brought the issue to the surface, with the result, for example, that 68% of German citizens are in favour and as many as 72% are in favour in France, the most Eurosceptic country. This shows that, when problems arise, when a clear decision has to be made – ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – it would seem that the peoples of the countries realise that they are in a situation where they are deciding the course of history and are extremely aware of the importance of European Union affairs. I would stress that we will analyse these statistics more thoroughly, for I only received them on a sheet of paper a few minutes ago and I would not like to mislead you. In any case, they reveal that the people become more aware of the importance of European Union affairs above all when they are faced with a historic event. Therefore, with all due reservations, considering that I am relying on a sheet of paper for information
I believe that this is a genuinely positive sign, for it means that we are working to change the course of history and we are working with the support of the citizens. It is for this that I want, much more deeply and much more directly, to thank Parliament, the social partners and the great politicians who, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and, in some cases, even before these events, awoke in us this dream of a unified Europe.
In conclusion, bearing in mind the incentives we have regarding some of our neighbours such as Ukraine, it is clear that, while we now have the great task of completing this enlargement, we must also open the debate on Europe’s borders, on its roots, on all these issues. I remember talking about this the first time I spoke before this House. It is not, of course, a debate which can be held today or tomorrow, but, clearly, enlargement raises the issues of our identity, our roots, our history and, by extension, our future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples