Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.2.2-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, as Mr de Miguel said to you in the last part-session, this is the first Presidency of the European Union with variable geometry.
During your Presidency, Mr Aznar, the European Union has not played a truly leading role in finding a fair solution to the conflict in the Middle East, and your proposals on Latin America and the Mediterranean have been incomprehensibly low-profile.
For these reasons, Mr Aznar, we cannot make a positive assessment of your Presidency. The positive aspects: the Galileo project, the health insurance card, and some other things, pale into insignificance against these reasons that I have tried to outline, at least for us.
You cannot make more Europe by allowing social policies, public services and common European policies to deteriorate. We need more Europe but also, and above all, a better Europe. Another Europe is possible, as thousands of citizens have been increasingly demanding more and more before every European Council, and particularly during your Presidency, in Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia and Seville. More Europe, yes, but a more supportive, more human Europe that serves citizens more and has a greater presence on the international stage.
I would also be grateful, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, if you could clarify the issue of what happened with Portugal regarding these demonstrations.
It is astonishing how little the priorities that Mr Aznar set out in this House at the start of the Presidency bear relation to the activity of the European Union during the past six months. He has shown a remarkable capacity to adapt in changing his priorities. For example, when it became complicated to fulfil the enlargement objectives, the subject of illegal immigration was introduced. The priority of terrorism was a focus that partly reduced the much broader mandate from Laeken, focused on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In actual fact there has not been any significant progress made on this aspect, and the issue of terrorism has consisted basically of the arrest warrant which had already been partly drawn up by the Belgian Presidency.
His capacity to adapt becomes even clearer if we consider that at the start of the Presidency, for example, the Commission’s proposals on immigration had been shelved. In Seville an attempt was made to deal with the issue of immigration solely and basically from a repressive and policing point of view. Fortunately, some Member States toned down his proposals in that respect.
Integration policies, family reunification cases, long-term resident status and common regulation of migratory flows have been put aside, or more correctly, are still to be developed.
The slogan for your Presidency, Mr Aznar, was "more Europe”, and one of the priorities and perhaps the one with the greatest political scope was that associated with the enlargement of the European Union. It is true that a good number of chapters have been closed, but they are not all of equal importance. The agricultural chapter was the main one, and within it, direct aid is much more important than any other subject. The Commission’s tight-fisted proposal on agriculture is rejected by the majority of the candidate countries. Also, the blocking of the General Affairs Council by four Member States demonstrates the magnitude of the problem, a subject on which not much progress was made in Seville.
A large number of Member States want a larger market, but not more Europe. The reasons are budgetary and the objective is partly to dismantle or reduce the few common policies.
We do need more Europe, Mr Aznar; a larger Europe, but not one that is void of content. The argument that you used before the Seville European Council is not valid: "futile efforts lead to melancholy ". The Presidency must do everything in its power to fulfil the final objectives. Mr Aznar, in Barcelona I do not think that you had any problem with pressuring France to the end regarding the liberalisation of electricity, despite the fact that there was an electoral process underway in that country. However, with the current electoral process in another country, you have not acted in the same way, in order to avoid pressure on enlargement and the reduction of the CAP, because you must consider it to be a futile effort. Although I am not justifying the attitude to liberalisation, it is clear that you have used two different yardsticks.
Your approach to economic aspects has also been partial and reductionist. You have managed to make a very neo-liberal mark on the Lisbon process, forgetting its content on quality employment, social cohesion and the role of social dialogue. You refuse to recognise the new economic stage, which has now moved far from the predictions of Lisbon; you maintain an inflexible interpretation in the economic guidelines of the Stability pact, but, at the same time, an “every man for himself” attitude so that some Member States can solve their budget balancing problems. That cannot be described as more Europe either.
In January, you literally stated your intention to create an area of greater economic prosperity to safeguard the European social model. The Barcelona European Council and the policies that your Government intends to implement in Spain are proof to the contrary. And from Barcelona to Seville, Mr Aznar, a general strike was called. There could be no other way, because your labour reform, cutting unemployment protection and making dismissal cheaper, is a further indicator of what the Spanish Presidency understands by making the labour market more flexible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples