Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-14-Speech-3-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040114.1.3-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, when observers talk about the difficulties that the Irish Presidency is going to face, they all stress the fact that the constitutional process is deadlocked. I fear that this will mean that we will not see the wood for the trees. To my mind, what happened at the Brussels summit and its conclusion were only symptoms of a deeper problem: the lack of a common plan, or in any case of a plan with which Europeans can identify.
Finally, there is well and truly a crisis in terms of the EU’s external action. One year after the major clash of choices at world level regarding Iraq, we have gained a great deal of experience. We now know that a State lied about weapons of mass destruction. We now know that a major power can win a war alone but is powerless to win peace. We also know that the occupation of Iraq is in fact feeding the terrorism that it was supposed to overcome. Everyone now knows all of this, but the Union is incapable of saying so and of learning lessons from it. This must change.
In the Middle East, which is urgently appealing for us to reinvigorate Europe’s role, the building of the annexing wall, stone by stone, is giving rise only to tentative statements. What are we doing to protect the Palestinian people? What are we doing to support the courageous efforts of Israeli and Palestinian figures who are unprecedentedly working to restart dialogue and negotiations? What are we doing to speed up the international conference planned in the route map? To be honest, we are doing very little. This must change.
My group sees all of these expectations of Europe that are being expressed in different regions of the world as an excellent opportunity that we should grasp. I am thinking of Latin America, where democracy is emerging, which is standing up to the hegemonic designs of the White House and is seeking genuine partners who respect its identity and sovereignty. I am thinking of the most heavily indebted countries which, given the obvious failure of initiatives from international financial institutions, are suffocating, with no concern from the international community. I am thinking of our partners who were disappointed in the Barcelona process, whose grievances we need to listen to so that we can restart Euro-Mediterranean and, more generally speaking, Euro-Arab relations.
May the Irish Presidency
take strong action in these different areas that can bring to life the image of a Europe that listens more to the criticism it receives and the hopes that it raises. This is what I see as your greatest task.
The challenge that we now have to meet is more ambitious, much more ambitious than seeking a compromise of power between two black sheep in the European Council. It is to dare to go beyond what is left unsaid, the soothing proposals, the Community hangover, and dare to call a spade a spade and a crisis a crisis. Being critical is a rare commodity in both the Council and the Commission.
This is why I am convinced that our fellow citizens would appreciate the major change of talking truthfully and responsibly about what is not working properly in the Union and calling for changes. There are currently numerous examples of such taboos that need to be lifted. I will just mention three of them that are particularly fundamental.
First of all, there are the crises of the euro and the stability pact, because the two problems are linked. The creation of the European currency was supposed to stimulate growth, promote employment and strengthen the Union in relation to its main competitors. What has happened so far? The economy is sluggish, there is massive unemployment and the euro zone is unflinchingly enduring Washington’s predatory monetary policy. This must change. The solutions to this that have been put forward do not seem to be credible to me or seem to be no longer credible. We are also being told that the Lisbon strategy is going to have new momentum. But where has all the momentum that we have had for nearly four years got us to in terms of growth and employment?
Great importance is also attached to major projects. There is no doubt that they correspond to very real needs, but by mainly using private capital, the scope of them is being significantly limited. The President of the EIB, Philippe Maystadt, acknowledges that the private sector (and I quote) ‘is interested as long as the projects are sufficiently profitable’, there is no secret about that. He goes on to say, to quote him again, that ‘the expression ‘growth initiative’ can lead to confusion. It is in no way a measure for trying to encourage a restart in the short term’.
These are the circumstances under which the stability pact is supposed to continue as if there were no negative effects on public spending, as if it were to be aimed, as we would like, at renovating hospitals for example or developing research. Commissioner Solbes is going to bring before the ECJ those States that have committed the crime, of – and I quote, ‘replacing a system based on respecting rules with a system based on political decisions’ – as if this crisis in the EU were not forcing us to review the rules and launch into detailed political discussions. This must change.
The second example of a crisis, which is quite significant, is that of the financial perspectives, and therefore of the solidarity policy at the time of enlargement. It was the Commission that, several months ago, triggered the former. On the basis of the famous Sapir report, drawn up at its request, it took responsibility for accrediting the unacceptable idea of a reduction in the Structural Funds after 2006.
More recently, the shameful initiative of the six richest countries in the EU drove the nail in: freezing the budget at 1 per cent of Gross Domestic Product from 2007, at a time when we are preparing to welcome ten new countries whose income per inhabitant is lower than half the average for the Fifteen. As there is no possibility in their minds of calling into question, the principle of the UK style refund, extracted twenty years ago by the ‘Iron Lady’, it is the solidarity funds that will provide the adjustment variable. Will we discuss this matter on 1 May, at the enlargement celebrations? If we want to make a success of this major project, this too is a factor that needs to be changed."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"An Taoiseach"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples