Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-18-Speech-3-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021218.3.3-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Copenhagen Summit marks an historic stage in European integration. I would like to thank the Danish Presidency for its active contribution.
We must welcome the fact that, ultimately, nothing has compromised the conclusion of your work at this late stage. Enlargement can and must represent an opportunity for Europe in terms of stability, peace, unification of the continent, bringing nations closer together, interaction and co-development opportunities, as well as in terms of increasing Europe’s influence on the world stage.
Can we now say, therefore, as you said last Saturday, President-in-Office of the Council, that – and I quote – ‘we now have a common vision of an integrated Europe’? I, for my part, would be slightly more cautious. With regard to the peoples of the candidate countries, I do not think that we are all square. At the end of the long and tortuous negotiation process, some wounds still have not been healed. My belief is that we may sooner or later have to pay the price for launching negotiations with these countries, negotiations whose content I believe is much too liberal in substance and whose form is sometimes perceived to be arrogant.
For example, has anyone assessed the shocking effect on all the people of the countries concerned of the discriminatory measure taken in the area of direct agricultural subsidies for between now and 2013? This choice has, in my view, considerably strengthened the underlying feeling that the Fifteen view the countries of Central Europe as second-class members. Furthermore, the drastic safeguard clauses imposed on our partners have also added to the impression of unequal relations between a David and a Goliath. Let us also point out how strictly the Community acquis has been applied to them, in spite of their fragile economy and the exorbitant social cost of an abrupt transition to a market economy.
In addition, by limiting themselves to a minimum financing level, which is still below 0.1% of their annual GDP, the Fifteen have given the impression of opting, if you look beyond the words, for a cut-price enlargement.
Throughout this process, the Union has been caught out, on more than one occasion, posing arrogantly as the rich and powerful benefactor of the poor relation, who has no other choice than to bow down or withdraw. It is no coincidence that the Polish Foreign Affairs Minister spoke, just prior to Copenhagen, of a diktat, or that his colleague responsible for agriculture spoke of capitulation. Beware of the boomerang effects of internalised humiliation! Let us not forget that the ratification referendums are due to take place early in 2003.
I therefore believe that we should make a gesture towards our partners: send a sign of respect and openness, demonstrate, in particular, that we do not view the acquis as set in stone, when reality reveals its limitations or contradictions in one area or another. The Fifteen did indeed view the Stability and Growth Pact to be part of the acquis until Mr Prodi to some extent played down its relevance. The citizens of the candidate countries are not the only ones to be struck by doubt or uncertainty either. The citizens of the current Member States are too. As soon as citizens start to feel that they are not genuinely involved in a project, as soon as they feel their lives are dependent on inaccessible decision-making bodies, which rapidly churn out standards, laws and various injunctions that often have serious consequences, they immediately perceive, rightly or wrongly, the risks rather than the opportunities of any new undertaking.
That said, the enlargement process has been conducted without the citizens thus far. Surveys tell us that four out of ten EU citizens can only give the name of one candidate country, and, out of those who can name one, almost a third say Turkey. In this respect, too, we need initiatives. We must encourage every possible meeting between people of Eastern and Western Europe to discuss the challenges that they face and which stir them into action. Today’s news is dominated by the challenges facing society which, from safety at sea to migration, jeopardise the enlarged Europe. The same applies to the need to provide secure employment and training and to safeguard services of general interest, to the necessary pre-eminence of political choices over market requirements, to the role of the Union on the world stage and to the part played by social players in the decision-making process. As we move towards the adoption of a new Treaty, which, in addition, is constitutional, the project of an enlarged Europe and its purpose must be debated in our societies. Otherwise, we will have no defence against a major incident which could undermine the civilising project that we all wish to succeed.
Lastly, Mr President, this major enlargement has been described – outside this Chamber – as a revenge for Yalta. I think it is wrong to embark upon this line of thinking. We cannot build anything sound or sustainable on revenge. This Cold-War approach is, I believe, completely outmoded. The unification of Europe must enable us to overcome all the tragedies of the twentieth century. This is possible, as long as we do not look back nostalgically at the past, to a blessed era of ‘Middle Europe’, the heritage of the Hapsburgs. We must now look confidently towards the future so that we can work together to enable a united Europe to enter the twenty-first century."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples