Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-21-Speech-3-269"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040421.10.3-269"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, again I wish to thank Members for their contributions, not all of which I will be able to cover. Parliament is well aware of how vital the transatlantic relationship is. Indeed, I almost signed up for Mr Van Orden's presentation when he said that all sniping should stop, but I unfortunately part company with him on his portrayal of the new Constitutional Treaty. That is a debate for another time. He is right that it is all too easy to fall into the trap of sniping at the transatlantic relationship, and at the Americans in particular.
We know about the shared history of Europe and North America, how the history has been shaped and how it has shaped the values we both share – Mr Collins made that point. All too often, however, the
between the United States and Europe make the headlines. It is time to promote the positive element of the relationship and to look at what we can achieve together, rather than continuously to focus on those issues on which we cannot agree. We should consider how we turn the ideas we share into a common reality. That is the challenge that faces political leadership in Europe and in the United States. Like all close partnerships, we do not agree on all issues at all times. Even the happiest marriages occasionally have points of disagreement. We must, however, work to maintain our dialogue and to cooperate in areas of shared interest.
Mr Suominen was right to say that finger pointing is neither attractive nor productive. I would certainly agree with that view. When Mr Collins pointed out the benefits of an effective multilateralist approach, as seen from Europe's viewpoint, he did so without the necessity that some people feel to attack the American viewpoint. He simply put forward the fact that there are two different viewpoints and proposed that we should work to produce a synthesis rather than to generate disagreement.
The fact is that we are working successfully with our United States partners across a full range of foreign policy issues, trade issues and economic issues in a sprit of partnership. There certainly are – and will continue to be – areas of disagreement. The reality that so much that we do in this relationship is positive should not be obscured by the disagreements of the moment.
Mr Belder mentioned the Marshall Plan. It was very interesting and timely that he should do so, because we need to remind ourselves that if it were not for the extraordinary generosity of the United States and the Marshall Plan, where would Europe be and where would this Union have been?
The forthcoming EU-US Summit in June is vital. It is very important in terms of the relationship and it is important that we share views, discuss differences and identify more clearly the areas of cooperation. The Irish presidency is working hard to ensure a successful summit. That is not to suggest that we are supine or that we would not agree occasionally to disagree on issues – of course we will. However, we in the presidency will do all we can to steer the relationship back onto a positive and productive track.
I would just like to mention, because a number of Members made this point, that what we say in Europe is amplified in the USA, and that what we say here is very frequently misportrayed over there. I am often shocked when I am in the United States at how often Europe is misunderstood and sometimes misrepresented. However, I have no doubt that visitors from the United States listening to our debates must sometimes be mystified as to how the United States is perceived, misunderstood and misrepresented here in Europe. As politicians, we have a responsibility to inform our citizens about the positive aspects of the relationship, notwithstanding the fact that there are occasional blips in it. In the past that relationship has been incredibly positive and I believe that will continue to be the case.
One speaker made the point that this was a good debate to have and a good time to have it. I agree.
I thank Members for their contributions, in all their diversity. While it will not be possible to follow all the advice that has been proffered simultaneously, I feel it important to say that the presidency has listened very carefully to what this House has had to say on this matter."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"differences"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples