Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.3.2-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, the defining of a strategy for the coming year provides us with an excellent opportunity to set priorities. In its policy strategy for 2004, the Commission chooses the accession of ten new Member States to the EU first of all, followed by stability, and lastly sustainable growth. We can endorse this choice of political priorities. The accession of ten new Member States has been an important theme throughout the term of office of this Commission, and it is right that it be given top priority in 2004. After all, by 1 May of next year enlargement from 15 to 25 Member States will be a reality; provided, of course, that the populations of the candidate countries agree to this.
In the Commission’s elaboration of the theme of ‘sustainable growth and solidarity’ it strikes one that, in the opinion of the Commission, the Union bears a very large number of responsibilities, namely: a) strengthening economic and social cohesion, b) tackling the uneven level of development between the various regions, c) supporting sustainable economic and social development and d) promoting balanced and sustainable development.
This optimism about one authority single-handedly bringing about social change does not square with our view of the matter. The Commission should adopt a more modest attitude in this regard and should not take on so many tasks.
We consider that making stability a priority was the right choice. After all, we need to take the global terrorist threat most seriously. The elaboration of this policy area in concrete terms, however, is once again at odds with our idea of security and stability in Europe. The most important partner in the global fight against terrorism and in maintaining international stability is missing from beside what is known as the ‘new neighbours initiative’, or ‘ring of friends’ policy. I am talking about the NATO alliance, with the United States of America as a strong ally. Is the Commission prepared to define its position on this matter?
It is in the European Union’s multi-annual perspective for the period 2004–2006 that it really shows its true colours: this perspective talks of the fundamental tasks not only of ‘European citizenship’ and the solidarity mentioned above, but also of ‘enabling the Union to exercise the responsibilities of a world power’.
In the light of the current situation, it is Utopian to think of the deeply divided European Union playing a more active role in the maintenance of security in the world.
Congratulations are due to Mr Mulder for his commendable report on the guidelines for the 2004 budgetary procedure. Unfortunately, I cannot talk in such positive terms about the report by Mrs Gill. The advantages she envisages in the draft statute for European political parties completely escape us. The Commission wants to get no less than 75% of the budget for these European parties out of the EU budget! Is that not completely out of proportion?
Political parties are free associations of citizens. Is it not logical, then, for citizens, who form the basis of every party, to give financial support to the party of their choice? This also respects the natural link between parties and their support base, which can only be beneficial to their involvement in politics. National political parties that wish to associate at European level should pay for that themselves – that is to say, their members should. European political parties are by definition much further removed from the bed of our citizens than national parties. If, therefore, we give those European parties an enormous subsidy from Community funds, we increase the gap between citizen and politics.
We find completely incredible Mrs Gill’s analysis that a propaganda offensive would bring the parties closer to the citizen. What visible effect have European campaigns about European citizenship or the benefits of the euro produced? The answer is none, so why should that succeed now? In the opinion of our group, it would be better to get the draft statute off the table as quickly as possible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples