Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-31-Speech-3-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040331.1.3-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it has been said that this was a European Council of newly-discovered cohesion in the wake of the terrible tragedy in Madrid, which has left us in no doubt that today we are all potential victims of indiscriminate terrorism, whereby blasphemous criminals manipulate a great religion to their own bloody ends. We hope that there really was cohesion but, after reading the conclusions and listening to the President-in-Office of the Council, and especially after observing the measures taken by the Member States and the proposals made by the Commission regarding asylum and the protection of their citizens’ personal data, I must express our deep concern. We call on Mr Prodi and the Council to take note of the resolution that Parliament is to adopt today in this respect. It is cast in very different language from yours, gentlemen.
Europe can and must choose a different path to combat terrorism from that of the United States, with its lies, its arms race, its pre-emptive wars and its Guantanamo Bay. We need a path that sets democratic stability, respect for human rights and a rejection of emergency measures as preconditions for action on the international stage and for cooperation in matters of internal security. What do we see today instead? We see the pathetic inability of the Member States’ governments to cooperate, hiding data and information from one another, as Mr Javier Solana has pointed out; we see the Commission making startling, untenable proposals about asylum which are clearly in breach of international conventions, and proposing to give away citizens’ personal data to mysterious US administrative bodies; we also see the umpteenth good man, Mr De Vries, placed at the head of a vaguely defined, once again wholly intergovernmental working group, while not a single clear idea emerges for a plan of action based on common, democratically approved rules.
It is thus quite clear now that we do not really want our police and secret services to cooperate in fighting terrorism, but we do want to set up generalised surveillance systems for passengers and citizens, under the illusion that this means we are monitoring everything. How serious we are about the fight against terrorism can also be measured by the European Union’s ability to give itself a constitution, as we have all said here today: a constitution able to keep its promises of effectiveness and democracy. The positive spirit of this European Council does not, however, rid us of our concerns, which were strengthened today, Mr Ahern, by your ambiguous message about the Italian Presidency’s well-known or, rather, infamous 82 items, which every so often pop up as a basis for negotiations and are just as often forgotten. If that is the case – and please tell me if it is – then the new Constitution will just be a pale and untenable copy of the Treaty of Nice.
The European Council talked a lot about the economy and growth. This flood of words is also found in the conclusions, which list so many fundamentally important issues that one cannot actually see which ones are the real priorities. The only thing we are sure of is that the environment is a non-priority, and for us that is a great setback. It is not surprising, then, that in this stalemate, and for lack of any real, practical plan of action and any true political leadership, it was decided to do something typical of the socialist tradition – even though most governments today are centre-right – which was to set up another working group, chaired by yet another great man, Mr Wim Kok. They never choose a woman, mind you! I think that would actually be a good idea.
Our objective – I have to point this out – is in fact a shared one. We have to take steps to get the European economy out of the vicious circle of low growth and high unemployment. Again, however, we express our scepticism at the approach supported by this European Council and also, alas, by the European Parliament in its resolution, which in this respect we cannot support, an approach that makes competitiveness an absolute dogma.
In comparison with whom should we be competitive? Ask the voters who have just voted in France and Spain; ask them what they think of the systems and conditions of work and welfare in the United States and in developing countries. You will realise that the strategy we need is very different, one that is well within reach for the European Union. Of course, it would be possible if the decision was made to get out of a stability pact that is now dead but still very much alive in political rhetoric, if the decision was made to make use of potential forms of sustainable growth that we are still ignoring, and if the decision was made to invest in sectors of the future, like research, clean energy, ecotourism and public transport. This is what we are asking for; this is the path we are asking you to follow to achieve growth. Something other than bridges and motorways!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples