Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.1.3-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I also cannot see how anyone could oppose the Commission’s priorities. Who could oppose the objectives of succeeding in enlargement, ensuring stability and security, firmly supporting the relaunch of the economy and employment, controlling globalisation and ensuring that the resulting benefits are redistributed as widely as possible taking account of Kyoto, Monterrey and Johannesburg, not forgetting a knowledge-based society, developing research with increased appropriations and better interaction between science and society. I must, however, admit to you my concern over the deepening abyss between the stated objectives, on the one hand, and the means implemented in order to achieve them and therefore the results that will arise from them, on the other. Moreover, in European public opinion polls, this is often what destroys the European ideal.
How can we succeed in enlargement without taking account of the diversity of the candidate countries – thereby better recognising the diversity of the current Member States – without taking sufficient account of their difficulties and needs, while at the same time we require them to succeed immediately in doing what some of the Fifteen have still not managed to do? How can we ensure security and also combat crime while limiting ourselves to a ‘Great Wall of China’ or ‘Berlin Wall’ type strategy, in other words substantially communitarising the acceptance and immigration rules in a realistic but humane way throughout the Union? How can we boost employment when free competition and the free market are detrimental to public services as a whole and when jobs are still considered a variable to be adjusted to benefit companies and when we attach more importance to financial, accounting and monetary concerns rather than to the economy and employment? How, lastly, can we control globalisation when the USA dominates the world in political and military terms and when large industrial and financial groups take care of the rest – often, moreover – under the control of the USA and large world stock exchanges? I do not know what the future holds for the Johannesburg conclusions, but I am fully aware of the way in which some have treated the Kyoto conclusions.
Before concluding, I shall ask the question that I would have liked to ask when research was mentioned: the Council has imposed a moratorium on stem cells. What will happen at the end of 2003 if the Council does not manage to reach an agreement on the ethical issues relating to these hundreds of millions of euros in appropriations?
I repeat, I share the Commission’s objectives. I cannot believe, however, that they will be achieved more successfully in 2003 than in 2002 or 2001, unless the necessary financial and political means are provided. The good qualities of the Commission and the Commissioners are not in question – the problem runs deeper than that. It is the whole problem of the European and world framework, the place of social issues, human issues and citizens. There is, in fact, a certain amount of discord among us on this point."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples