Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-07-21-Speech-3-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990721.3.3-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(IT) Mr President, the Presidencies of the Council of the European Union are not isolated entities and cannot be judged without taking into account the sequence of past events. The German Presidency was established within the context of the British leadership and the creation of the single currency. Thus, no judgment can be made regarding the outgoing Presidency without taking into consideration the low profile of the previous one and the hopes raised by the appearance of the euro, which were then dashed and now remain on the drawing board.
The Treaty of Amsterdam had not resolved the issue of the functioning of the institutions, and in the field of foreign policy the only step forward was the appointment of Mr CFSP who, however, was not yet in office during the Kosovo crisis, which, without waiting for the delays and continued absence of Europe, broke out like a scourge and set off a new spate of the crime of ethnic cleansing which had infected Bosnia.
The German Presidency was therefore left without sufficient tools at its disposal and the Atlantic Alliance was the only support suitable to confront Milosevic"s policy. Notwithstanding the ambiguous waverings of certain governments, the weight of the European Union was irrelevant for the purposes of military action and Europe was seen to have no autonomous will, even with respect to the Alliances. Was the Cologne European Council meeting a step forward? Perhaps, with regard to the intentions declared, but it all seems very hazy to contemplate setting a date by which the Union will be able to be an autonomous political entity with foreign and security policies. The responsibility of the national governments regarding the excessively delayed implementation of political union is huge and the German Presidency really does not seem to have changed the rhythm. The only positive point is that it included the common defence issue on the Cologne agenda.
Another issue on which the Presidency failed to make progress was that of employment. Having shouted from the roof-tops during the German election campaign that with the socialist rise to power everything would change and a shining path would be embarked on leading to the creation of large numbers of jobs and thereby reversing the negative trend evident in Europe for over ten years, no initiative was taken in this direction and no proposal was discussed with regard to the development of the European economy.
Without a concerted economic policy aimed at development it will be difficult to fight unemployment or create conditions adequate to stop the fall of the euro. Since the German Presidency did not do this, how is the Finnish Presidency going to manage it? And how are we going to be able to deal seriously with unemployment with the date for enlargement ever nearer? Political union, foreign policy, defence policy, common economic policy, the fight against unemployment – these seem to be the priorities that no Presidency can ignore. But the Presidencies talk about these issues, pass them, yet fail to implement them. The European Union loses momentum and the citizens continue to call for less talking and more action."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples