Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-10-21-Speech-3-247"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091021.10.3-247"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mrs Malmström, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, cooperation between Europe and the United States is crucial in resolving most of the major crises in the world, and the new US administration certainly provides an opportunity. It has already taken some initiatives that have marked a break with the past: in Iraq, on Guantánamo, on the anti-missile shield. It would be naïve, however, to think that that will be enough to make US and European points of view identical in all situations, and that transatlantic relations will now be very simple.
Whether on preparations for Copenhagen or aid to developing countries, on Doha and protectionism, on financial regulation and combating tax havens, on the relaunch of the peace process in the Middle East or a firm policy on the nuclear issue in Iran, the US is extremely unwilling to take action. This goes beyond the issue of whether or not the administration has good intentions, and often relates to the influence of lobby groups on Congress, or simply the defence of its interests by a great power which is being shaken by the new world order.
All these spheres will only make progress if Europe plays its proper political role as a separate global player, in a partnership of equals – to use the Commissioner's expression – and fully assumes its responsibilities.
From this viewpoint, I must say that there is a certain confusion in the European attitude and sometimes even a certain naivety, and that this also extends to Parliament. The approach being taken to the idea of a large transatlantic market, which was Sir Leon Brittan’s hare-brained scheme back when he was Commissioner, poses certain risks.
This affair of barriers to trade is being tackled as if the problems were only of a technical nature. Naturally, economic and commercial trade between the United States and Europe is important for jobs and for businesses. It ought to be developed. First of all, however, trade is not really in danger. Secondly, when there is a conflict, either it relates to defending our economic interests – for example, as in Airbus – or it poses a risk to our health or environmental rules – in the case of beef containing hormones, for instance, or chlorinated chicken – and we should therefore not prioritise the improvement of economic relations over our own internal model, our social model, our environmental model, or development model, as if economic relations were an end in themselves. We must be able to combine the two, and we should not surrender our political autonomy in search of a partnership that is, in itself, a commendable objective."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples