Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.4.3-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would firstly like to offer our thanks for the work carried out by Mrs Muscardini and Mr Naïr and for their receptiveness to our proposals, and I would also like to say that our group supports both reports.
More specifically, I would like to highlight some positive aspects which have been introduced, particularly in the field of human rights, and more especially an amendment from our group which asks for condemnation of the death penalty and a moratorium on pending executions. It would be cause for great hope if the moratorium were to take effect immediately.
On a different issue, I would also like to express our confidence in the impetus that the amendments provide in the regional and local field and to civil society, especially to private investment as a genuine driving force for development, over and above state aid and European aid at the highest level.
I will not go into any more detail, because I believe that the main points have been made clear by Mrs Muscardini and Mr Naïr in their speeches. However, I would like to make two observations in relation to the debates which we have held in committee and in our group. One of these concerns political priorities and the other concerns the coherence of our actions.
We do not all believe that we have to set the priority of enlargement towards the East against the priority of the Mediterranean. I also believe that the President-in-Office of the Council, Mrs Lindh, made this clear the other day in committee. They are two real priorities but they are different. Enlargement is an operational priority for which we have set objectives, we know where we are going and we know what we want and, in reality, there are no alternative strategic options.
On the other hand, Mediterranean policy is a strategic priority, in which we do not know where we are going or, to be more precise, we are moving inexorably towards a place to which we do not want to go. The foreseeable change in income, bearing in mind current demography and economic growth, indicates that our average per capita income will rise and the average per capita income in North Africa will decrease and, unless this is prevented, the problems we all envisage, and which there is no need to mention, will increase. We know what will happen, but we do not know how to prevent it, although we want to prevent it at all costs. Let us not, therefore, set political priorities against one another.
My other point concerns the coherence of our actions, because, in order to get results, we must be more coherent. Clearly, we need will and we need resources, but, in fact, resources are not being used; and this means that there is insufficient capacity for management on our part, and there is insufficient capacity for absorption on the part of the receiving countries. More is requested and then is not used. Therefore, somebody should ask ‘why do we not readjust the figures?’ But what we really need is a budget and it must be used. For all these reasons I believe that we need conviction as well as the capacity for absorption.
I hope that these reports will help us to find the correct method, but quite honestly I am not convinced they will."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples