Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-14-Speech-2-171"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030114.5.2-171"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I should like to comment on a methodological question.
I said at the beginning that, following the decisions taken at the summit, the two countries assuming the presidency in any one year must agree on the issues they intend to deal with during the year. And that is what we have done with Italy. We did not agree on individual policies, nor do we agree with the views propounded by each country. Each country has its own views. But the programme of issues we have to deal with is an agreed programme; one example is how the future of Europe should be handled. We agreed that the Convention on the future of Europe should submit its conclusions by June, so that the Intergovernmental Conference can be held in the second half of the year. Our aim under this agreement – as the last summit in fact decided – was that the Convention should finish by June and the Intergovernmental Conference should start in the second half of the year. That is what we mean by cooperation between the two countries which hold the presidency during the course of the year.
As far as the Convention is concerned, I agree with the members who said that the outcome should be a draft constitution or constitutional treaty, and that is what we too are aiming for. However, I should like to ask all of you to keep up the pressure so that we keep to the timetable. By which I mean, we want the Convention to finish before the summit in June, so that the June summit can decide how to proceed in the next six months, because I too believe that the Intergovernmental Conference should be wrapped up by the end of the year, so that the constitutional area is clarified before May 2004 when the new members start exercising all their rights.
Secondly, the issue of Iraq. I have listened to the honourable Members and I would like to make clear that the presidency is interested primarily – quite apart from the peace I referred to – in all the members of the European Union taking a common stand. That is why I have already been in touch with my counterparts; that is why my foreign minister, Mr Papandreou, has been in touch with his counterparts; that is why we agreed that the General Affairs Council on 27 January would discuss precisely how we can take a common line in general and at the United Nations in particular. We are not alone in taking this initiative; the other Member States are also on board. We are not hiding behind the United Nations. I do not accept that. But it would be a mistake to believe that, because we have 4 members, it is we who decide what will be done at the United Nations, as if no discussion with the other countries were needed. It is not just the United States; Russia and China mainly and other countries also play a part. We need a common stand in the world and we hope that the common stand that prevails will be disarmament in accordance with the Security Council resolutions and peace. War is not necessary. We need to try and achieve results without military intervention.
That brings me to the question of enlargement. The first issue is Cyprus. I agree that the Annan plan offers a window of opportunity and there is a momentum at the moment which bodes well for a solution. I also agree that we need to get past ethnicities and that stupid, exaggerated ethnicities exist and that stands continue to be taken that reflect attitudes which prevailed during or at the beginning of the last century. However, I do not believe that Mr Clerides stands for this sort of ethnicity. On the contrary, Mr Clerides is one of those who has fought consistently for a solution which brooks no ethnicity. And as far as Mr Denktash is concerned, I should point out that, so far, he has not given a single convincing sign that he accepts the Annan plan. He needs to give convincing signs of acceptance, rather than of appearing to want negotiations to drag on endlessly until the United Nations plan is abandoned. The upside of all this is that the Turkish-Cypriot people are really pushing for peace and an end to the problem. That bodes well not just for a solution to the problem; it bodes well, more to the point, for a workable, effective solution that consolidates the will of both communities to bring about a modus vivendi and real union.
In reply to the question raised about Turkey, I speak here as the presidency. The European Union decided to grant Turkey candidate status in Helsinki. That is what the European Union decided. And every presidency has to work on the basis of that decision. Greece also believes this was the right decision. Turkey has been present in Europe for centuries and, if Europe wants to wield any influence in the wider world beyond its borders, in the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia for example, it is in our interests to have Turkey on board. Besides, anyone who has lived in Turkey knows only too well that a large part of the Turkish population subscribes to our values and has the same views as us about society and mankind. Of course, there are others who take a different view, but European ideas and European values are not foreign to Turkey. By no means. I think that we need to continue in this vein, as decided at Helsinki. I agree with the honourable Members who said that the Balkans still have some way to go but that we cannot ignore the fact that they too are part of Europe and that, at a later date, and it is still some way off, a future European Union will need to unite the whole of Europe. We do not want any outcasts and I must emphasise, because I have visited these countries on many occasions, that the possibility of their joining the European Union at some point in the future is giving them an incentive to improve their democracy and their economy.
Numerous members raised the question of safety at sea; first, I disagree with one member who said that these accidents were caused by ships sailing under the Greek flag. No accidents have been caused by ships sailing under the Greek flag. These ships were sailing under other flags. The Greek Government is required to inspect ships sailing under the Greek flag and these inspections are so thorough that ships in the European Union sailing under the Greek flag are classified as ships requiring no further inspection. As far as the
is concerned, someone said that perhaps Greece is not interested in regulations. On the contrary, we agreed with all the proposals made at the last council held on the subject; we ourselves tabled the same proposals for dealing with these problems, by cutting transitional periods and so on, and we are now waiting for the Commission to submit the relevant conclusions to the Council. The Greek Presidency intends to ensure that these proposals go straight to the top of the Council’s agenda and are adopted as quickly as possible, because we too want clean seas. I can assure you that, in Greece, both non-governmental organisations and the state are working for clean seas with the means currently available.
Ladies and gentlemen, a great deal has been said about the Lisbon policy and what does or does not need to be done. First, we agree with the Commission’s spring report. The spring report stressed that growth rates need to be stepped up by adopting all the policies decided. I should like to reply to all the comments made by reading out quickly not all – there is too little time for that – but some of the issues we shall be working on:"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Ρrestige"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples