Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.3.2-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The debate on the state of the Union is an established item on our agenda. It gives us the chance to look at progress in the year just ended and our objectives for the current year. This year, the debate falls at a particularly sensitive time in terms of both international affairs and the life of the Union. The Iraq crisis, enlargement and the Convention weigh so heavily on our minds and hearts that there is no need for me to mention them. I shall only stress that today's debate gives us all the duty to weigh up the opportunities and challenges connected with the unification of our continent and to reflect on the lessons to be drawn from the Iraq crisis at a time when we are drafting the new constitutional charter of our Union.
This brings me to the Convention. I have always believed that our mission was to bring about enlargement and reform of the institutions in parallel. As they stand, the institutions and procedures, conceived and designed for a community of six largely homogenous States, no longer meet the requirements of a larger, more diverse Union. That is why I feel it is positive that the candidate countries have been full members of the Convention right from the beginning and that they are making an active contribution to it. Indeed, I would like to stress that one of the most encouraging aspects of the Convention’s work is precisely the way delegates meet and work in a variety of mixed configurations that make any distinction between the representatives of the present and the future Member States essentially impossible.
This is not the time or the place to go into the progress made by the Convention, but I would like to say that the wide consensus on issues such as the constitutional nature of the text to be produced, the streamlining of instruments and procedures, the full inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the legal personality of the Union is grounds for optimism regarding its conclusion. As I have said, this is not the place to go into details, but there is one point I regard as essential, in the light of both the international crisis and the role the Union is called to play on the international stage; I am referring to the use of majority voting across the board. The requirement of unanimity actually causes paralysis, as we have seen in recent days. This is already the case now and will be even more of a problem in the enlarged Union we have decided to build. This is another reason why we need an open political debate on the new enlarged Europe. Only if we have devised a common project will we be ready to fully accept the basic rule of every democratic institution, which is majority voting. Only when we feel that we agree on all the basic elements that unite us will we be able to accept being in a minority whenever necessary while still feeling fully represented.
Ladies and gentlemen, today's annual policy strategy debate will define the political horizons and resource framework for 2004. It kicks off a process that will end with the adoption of the budget and the presentation of the legislative work programme for next year. Throughout this process, we shall be engaged in an intense detailed debate with Parliament and the Council in order to define the fundamental political options. I would stress that the work of the Parliamentary committees will be of crucial importance here, in particular. A new element in the strategy for next year is the 2004 – 2006 multiannual programme that is to be approved by the European Council, a completely new departure.
I am confident that our interinstitutional cooperation will generate a work programme that matches our ambitions, and we have very high ambitions, as is quite clear from the political priorities we have set ourselves for 2004. Indeed, next year, our efforts will focus on enlargement, growth and internal and external security.
Without going into the details of the individual aspects of this programme, I would like to draw your attention to the issue of our relations with countries that are already our neighbours or will be neighbours of the enlarged Union. I am referring to the band of countries stretching from Russia and Ukraine to Morocco. With this ring of friendly countries we propose to step up cooperation to start a process that may in time lead us to share ‘everything except institutions’ with all of them. A common market, a reinvigorated political dialogue based on shared principles and values and the harnessing of the full external potential of our common policies: these are the pillars of the new strategic concept for the Union that we are setting out in a communication on a ‘Wider Europe’. Only in a wider area of stability and prosperity can Europe deal safely with the sometimes disturbing developments on the world stage and fully exploit the opportunities offered by globalisation.
Like all Europe's policies for the coming years, this medium- to long-term strategy for relations with neighbouring countries calls for the preparation of a political project for the Union, and its financial implications will need to be determined. The medium-term political programme preparing the forthcoming Financial Perspective will play a key role here. The Financial Perspective must not only be in line with the constitutional Treaty that will emerge from the Convention and the subsequent intergovernmental conference but also lay the necessary foundations for an enlarged Union that strives to achieve three major political objectives: peace, freedom and solidarity. In this regard, by the end of the year or, at the latest, in early 2004, we shall put forward our overall political project for the enlarged Europe and outline the broad guidelines for the financial proposals it calls for. Then, we will prepare the relevant legislative proposals so that they are ready for adoption towards the middle of next year.
We have completed the enlargement negotiations. Now we must define the political project for the enlarged Union. This means we must say what can be done at Union level to foster and safeguard civil liberties, how the Union can complement Member States' laws in fundamental areas such as health, security and the area of freedom and justice, what policies at Union level can best contribute to sustainable prosperity in Europe, what objectives the Union should set itself to further regional and social cohesion in an enlarged Europe that will have much greater economic disparities than the Union of Fifteen, what changes will be needed in research policy and the Structural Funds to achieve those objectives, whether expenditure on cohesion should rise, fall or remain unaltered if economic inequalities are to be reduced both between Union countries and within the individual Members, and, lastly, what policies are needed to project the European model externally, particularly in countries that are close to us.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as we have seen today, the Union is a Union on a journey. A Union that must draw on present experience to grow stronger, so that it can assert its identity and its role in the world more decisively. The current crisis must serve as an incentive for us to speed up the reform process which is underway. This process is necessary irrespective of enlargement, but enlargement and the present international context make it even more imperative and urgent. Today, we have a chance to reinvigorate our unity. Our fellow citizens are calling for this and events leave us no choice. The Convention is a potential turning point in the life of our Community: let us all strive to make it a success. Together, we can succeed. Together, we can and must lay the political and financial foundations to complement the institutional basis and open this new chapter.
The work we accomplish together this year and next year will, to a large extent, dictate the nature and role of the Union in the world, the Union we will leave to future generations.
Let me start with enlargement today. Last December, we wound up accession negotiations with ten countries. Ten countries we should now call ‘acceding’, not ‘candidate’ countries. Meanwhile, negotiations are going ahead with Bulgaria and Romania so that they can join shortly afterwards and, with the necessary adjustments, joint work is continuing with Turkey. In this regard, before you all, I want to express my thanks to the Commission staff and Commissioner Verheugen for their dedication and their hard work.
The Union's task, however, in the area of enlargement does not end with the decision taken at Copenhagen. Indeed, Croatia's recent application shows that another region of Europe is knocking at our door. Here I refer to the western Balkans. I want to make it quite clear that the unification of Europe cannot be regarded as complete until the Balkan countries are members of the Union too. This prospect of membership must be clearly offered, while it must also be stressed that the criteria followed in the first round of enlargement will be applied just as strictly. After years of uncertainty, democratic debate in both the old and the new Member countries of the Union will now be on firm ground. The very positive outcome of the referendum in Malta is an auspicious sign and an incentive to even greater efforts.
Important though it is, the accession of the new Member countries is only one stage in the process, and it must not obscure the fact that there is still much to do. The first job is to complete economic integration. The current 15 Member States can and must do much more to promote growth and employment and to reduce disparities. It is the future Members, however, those that are to join next year and those that will join a little later, which warrant the greatest attention. Our shared goal must be to foster sustained growth, strengthen cohesion, step up environmental protection, reduce disparities and, ultimately, encourage all to adopt the euro. Broadly speaking, those are the main points of our economic integration project.
While this is our first priority, the second task is to advance the political debate, and that is equally important. It is time we had an in-depth, honest, completely transparent debate on the type of Europe we want to build together. The very success of our integration has already made it unavoidable. The Iraq crisis and the state of international relations mean we can put it off no longer. The possibility of war in Iraq deeply stirs the feelings of Europeans because reconciliation and peace lie at the very foundations of the European Union. It affects us Europeans all the more here and now because chance would have it that four of our Member Sates and one candidate country are currently members of the UN Security Council.
In this situation, we have to guard against two temptations. One temptation would be to build a Europe that is in opposition to the United States. This crisis is marked by widely diverging views on the instruments to be used. These differences are important because they mark the line between war and peace, but they do not affect the ultimate objective of our policies or the solidity of our alliance or cast doubt on the whole web of transatlantic relations, our shared history and the extent of our bonds. The second temptation we must guard against is focusing solely on the dissension within the Union. Differing views have clearly emerged among both the 15 Member States and the future Members in recent weeks. However, as the extraordinary meeting of the European Council of 17 February rightly pointed out, we are all agreed on a large number of fundamental points. We all want the UN to remain the cornerstone of world order. We all support the Security Council in carrying out its duties. We all believe that war is not inevitable but, at the same time, we think that Iraq must be made to face up to its responsibilities.
That said, we must confront our weaknesses head on. Indeed, we Europeans not only have a political obligation to reach a common position: after Maastricht, we are obliged by the Treaties to show loyalty and mutual solidarity. The Member States on the Security Council have a particular duty to coordinate their actions and keep others informed of what is happening, while the permanent members should defend the positions and interests of the Union.
The mechanisms for this are clearly inadequate, but does this mean we have to wring our hands and conclude that the objective of joint action is unachievable? Absolutely not. Failure to put in place effective procedures and instruments that facilitate the emergence of shared positions will make it hard to forge a common Union foreign policy and will certainly delay it. Our imagination and our determination must be equal to the challenge. Giving in is absolutely out of the question. The questions before us, which we have to answer, are both difficult and crucial. What kind of Europe do we want? What guideline are we following? I personally cannot be content with a ‘supermarket’, or some sort of large Single Market. Do we not want to build a genuine political area that allows us to affirm and defend our principles and our values throughout the world? Then we cannot continue indefinitely in this state of ‘European schizophrenia’ in which we expect the Union and the integration process to provide prosperity and development while relying on the United States to guarantee our security.
European public opinion is remarkably clear about what it wants. The regular Eurobarometer surveys carried out by the Commission reveal that our citizens, in particular, want the Union to ensure their security, both at home and abroad. This afternoon, to step up our commitment in the defence sector, the College will adopt a Communication strengthening the European defence industry. On the question of war and peace – and we have had a spectacular and unprecedented demonstration of the public's views in the streets and squares of our cities – the shared views of the public know no barriers in Europe. This is a sign that the peoples of Europe are moving closer together, a sign which prefigures and anticipates the reform of the European institutions and procedures. This shared sentiment, this spontaneous sharing of values in no way reduces the importance of an in-depth, open political debate: it only emphasises the need for it even more. It was no accident that the Commission's first contribution to the Convention on 22 May 2002 proposed a project for Europe that highlighted, amongst other things, the need for a Union that can ‘exercise the responsibilities of a world power.’ One of the few benefits of the tragic Iraq crisis is that it is actually forcing us to talk honestly about the very nature of our way of coexisting and doing things. We must not be afraid of an open debate, for it is only through dialogue that possible solutions can emerge."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples