Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.1.2-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to comment briefly on a few speeches, but let me first express my warm gratitude for the praise which the Swedish presidency has received from various party groups in Parliament. I would like to extend thanks to everyone who has worked hard and enthusiastically for the Swedish presidency. The group of senior civil servants led by Under-Secretary of State Lars Danielsson should also, of course, receive particular mention in this context.
Thank you for such excellent cooperation during the Swedish presidency.
First of all, I would like to say something about the demonstrations in Göteborg: We are democrats. We support the right to demonstrate. We are against violence. We condemn anyone who uses violence to subvert political processes. What happened in Göteborg was that we had a wide-ranging democratic dialogue with people of different opinions to ourselves. That was good, as the point of democracy is to be able to get together and exchange views. What happened beyond that was that there was a relatively small group of hooligans who are very active internationally, whom we have seen before in other circumstances and whom I fear we may see again in the future. They must be treated very firmly by the forces of law and order, who did an excellent job in Göteborg, by the way. These militant hooligans often call themselves anti-fascists. That is their own way of describing themselves. I must say that I have never seen anything more fascistic than their methods of operation. Their whole way of addressing politics is fascistic. Their whole way of using violence is the way of fascism. When I use the
label for these
this is in fact to show that both extremes have merged. We have seen many examples of this before in European politics. Perhaps we will see further examples, but never let us as democrats be pitted against one another in this context. We must present a united front against violence, fascism and communism. That is the lesson to be learned from Göteborg.
I am sorry that the leader of the PPE-DE Group, Mr Poettering, is not present. It would have been valuable if he could have listened directly to these humble views from a representative of the Council. I hope, even so, that he will be able to read these simple thoughts in the minutes.
In his elegant and well-formulated speech, Mr Cox touched on a matter to which I attach great importance, and that is the conciliation which we have achieved on company takeovers. I would be extremely concerned if Parliament did not support the conciliation results. This is a unique event and something which will have fundamental consequences for Parliament’s work in the future. I therefore urge Parliament to show support, in the way described by Mr Cox, for the conciliation process that has taken place.
Let me also say that I value what Mr Van Velzen said about the tendency we have, and to which I referred in my introduction, to see the candidate countries as the ones facing the greatest difficulties. It is clearly difficult for them to adapt to the demands we set, but
reform process is run with energy and clear goals. As we approach the final chapter of the negotiations, I believe that it is within the circle of the Member States that it will be most difficult to formulate positions. In our experience during our short presidency
is what we had to spend most time on. I fully support the view that we have difficult chapters ahead of us, for example agricultural and regional policy, matters which naturally also form the foundation for the structure which we currently have in European politics.
Let me also say that Mr Corbett from the UK
made a very good point about the character of the presidency. I would warn against the development we are now seeing whereby every time a new country holds the presidency of the European Council, there is a belief that the Union must be fundamentally changed. It is incredibly important that those who lead the Council see their task as a
responsibility which means that one presidency interlocks with another. Policy must remain stable and, if appropriate, be taken forwards. However, the guiding principle must be the common interests of the Union, and the national aspect must therefore be pushed into the background. This is the way we have operated. Some have seen this as boring, but I am convinced that it is a necessary approach if the working method of a rotating presidency is to survive in the future. I strongly support what Mr Corbett said.
Mr Wijkman regrets the lack of debate on the future of Europe during the Swedish presidency. Let me say directly to him that I have heard this before. What exactly have we been doing during the Swedish presidency? Foreign policy, environmental policy, enlargement of the EU that is as much of a debate about the future as you can have. However, by debate on the future of Europe, some mean the Union’s structures and often add that you have to have some sort of federal impulse to qualify as a debater of the future in the EU. I myself do not share this view, but believe that the debate on the future must now address what we want to achieve. So let us gradually, during the Belgian presidency, the Spanish presidency and the Danish presidency, enter into discussions as to what this political will requires in the form of expanded institutions within the EU. This is the way we should look at it, and that is why what we have contributed during the Swedish presidency has been to the very highest degree a debate about the future. The issues are enlargement, foreign and security policy and the environment.
Let me say to Mr Bradbourn that I am grateful for his words as, from his Conservative point of view, he put his finger on an important point. It has, of course, been said that the environmental conclusions in Göteborg should not be detailed and should not in any way be compulsory or challenging. The criticism from Mr Bradbourn to the effect that they go too far and are too detailed shows, however, that they are exactly that. They
detailed. All those who criticise these conclusions for not going far enough have, in actual fact, been answered quite well and clearly by his speech. I am grateful for Mr Bradbourn’s contribution, but I do not share his view. That is more or less where I stand.
Let me finally say that Mr Dell’Alba brought up what may prove to be the biggest event of the six months of the Swedish presidency. What I am spontaneously thinking of, namely the extradition of Milosevic to The Hague, is not of course a direct consequence of action by the Swedish presidency, but it is a consequence of the firm action by the European Union and others on this issue. It is a consequence of a value-based approach to relations in terms of foreign policy. It is a consequence of our promoting human rights. It may well be that the extradition of Milosevic to The Hague will in future be described as the vital, major event which changed the character of foreign policy, as those who turn on their citizens or others or who wage war on ethnic grounds – wherever in the world it may be – are observed and monitored, made to answer for their actions and held accountable before internationally united political opinion, based on values of democracy and human rights. The extradition of Milosevic to The Hague is a major political event and a victory for all those who believe in a foreign policy based on common values."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"communists"1
"continuing"1
"fascist"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples