Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-04-Speech-3-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030604.2.3-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, the Greek Presidency has been characterised by particularly seminal deadlines for the future of the Union, such as the signature of the accession treaty by ten new countries and the probable conclusion of the Convention’s work.
For all these reasons, Mr President, my group considers that the Greek Presidency would serve Europe well by raising this entire problem clearly at the Thessaloniki European Council: what do we want to do together and what means are we providing ourselves with in order to achieve our objectives?
In any case, in our societies, the question has now been raised and that is a very good thing. Earlier, I quoted a French author. For good measure, I shall end my speech by quoting the great German, Hölderlin:
‘Where there is danger there is also salvation’. It is clear where the danger lies for Europe. Let us be among those who seek to save it.
I would like to focus, however, on a third major event, which is more important than any other: the sudden appearance of the Union’s identity crisis. What do we want to do together? This existential question remains, more than ever, unanswered, certainly with regard to our internal ambitions for the Union. Do we genuinely want to set ourselves the objective that the praesidium of the Convention proposes should be included in the future Constitution of the Union, namely balanced economic growth and social justice, full employment, high living standards, social protection and equal opportunity for all?
In that case, why refuse to open the debate on a change in the priorities of the European Central Bank? Its priority should no longer be price stability, at a time when there is a risk of recession, but instead protection of jobs, training and pensions for all women and men, the funding of useful infrastructures, such as large-scale piggybacking, and, more generally, genuine, fair, sustainable development. Why confine public services to the precarious status of a derogation to the rule of free competition, instead of making the promotion of high-quality services of general interest a priority of the Union, one consequently included in the Constitution?
Why continue to block any possibility of taxing the movement of capital and financial income? This kind of blatant contradiction between the statement of objectives corresponding to expectations and the rejection of means that would enable us to achieve them is at the heart of the lack of trust felt by our fellow citizens with regard to the European institutions. What do we really want? We must respond frankly and take responsibility for our choices so that Europeans can participate in the debate in an informed manner. As Albert Camus wrote: ‘Mal nommer les choses, c'est ajouter au malheur du monde’ (‘To name things wrongly is to add to the misfortune of the world’).
This identity crisis is equally obvious with regard to the role of the Union in the world. This has become only too clear since the war against Iraq. Before the conflict, contradictory, but frank, voices at least enabled public opinion to be clear on the matter and become involved in this confrontation of choices. They did so in such a spectacular manner and so uniformly from Western to Eastern Europe that this sudden crisis, in our opinion, represents a real hiatus in the history of the Union and the only hope of future change.
On the other hand, since the show of force by the world superpower, against the law and will of the international community, it seems as if the European Union is rebuilding its unity on the basis of resigned or enthusiastic subordination to the fittest. Paul Wolfowitz admits that the crusade to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was merely ‘a bureaucratic pretext to gain acceptance for the war’. This tremendous deception has called forth no indignation among the Fifteen, let alone among the Twenty-five. This was confirmed this morning, and I regret it.
George Bush decides to monopolise the management of the road-map for the Middle East, with all the risks entailed by his complicity with Sharon and the latter’s reservations on the very substance of the commitments to be made; the European Union, despite having jointly initiated this fragile hope of peace, allows itself to be ousted from the scene with no resistance.
The United States rejects the International Criminal Court, maintains special military courts, detains – as Mr Barón Crespo pointed out – European citizens in a law-free zone in Guantanamo Bay; the Council nevertheless prepares an extradition and mutual legal cooperation agreement with Washington, turning a blind eye to all these broken rules.
Our US partners relaunch their attack for the moratorium on GMOs to be lifted in order to protect US agriculture; Europe instantly starts to waver, holding back from applying the trade retaliation measures that are authorised by the WTO itself against the thoughtless tax advantages granted to exporters in the US."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples