Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-20-Speech-2-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060620.6.2-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to address the issues briefly. Firstly, the issue of the US summit. I will start with this issue as it has been mentioned by several speakers.
The Turkish issue is also part of the overall picture. We must speak truthfully. I have fought hard to open negotiations with Turkey and also to bring this chapter to a conclusion. We need to be clear about one thing, however: obligations must be honoured. The obligations contained in the Ankara Protocol must be honoured in full, and, coming when they did, the statements of last week, which have been very disappointing for all those who have shown great commitment to the European route of binding Turkey to Europe, were an example of particularly bad timing on our part.
I turn now to my last but one point: the Constitutional Treaty. Allow me to speak openly here. We need some new elements. This is obvious to everyone who feels affection for this painfully acquired child of European unity. We all know this. Forgive me, but I am not keen on the term ‘Constitutional Treaty’. It has, in any case, been a very peculiar compromise. What we have is neither a Constitution nor a Treaty, but a Constitutional Treaty. Let us give it another name, because it resonates with other implications. People must already be aware of that. What is more, we will of course need interpretations. That is why this Messina-type declaration is quite important. Why was there some opposition to this Constitutional Treaty? Because there were concerns that liberal or other tendencies were being over-emphasised.
I am of a different opinion. I believe that the Constitutional Treaty contains solid individual social basic rights. It contains twelve concrete basic rights which can be enforced right up to the level of the European Court of Justice. Nobody knows about them, however. I believe that we must try to bring this element of European life and of the European social model more into the spotlight. If we can do that, then we shall be in a better position and less vulnerable to criticism, for, according to Eurobarometer - – if I read the figures correctly - 63% of Europeans are in favour of such a Constitution or Treaty. It is not right that a minority put its stamp on the whole of Europe. It must be possible to come to a common solution, characterised by consensus, even while some are bound to find fault. That is democracy, after all. It must be possible for the majority to fight for a majority view, and that is what I am doing.
I shall say a few words about the subject of sign posts, just to put everyone in the picture. Last year in Austria, I was partly responsible for having 20 extra bilingual signposts put up with the cooperation of the Austrian Regional Governor, a measure that was greatly welcomed by all the political parties. I now have an ordinance in the course of being appraised which will provide for a further 60. We expect the Constitutional Court of Appeal also to recognise the ordinance this week, and we shall produce the final resolution next week. However, for me the most important issue is not that of the sign posts. The greatest success for minority politics in Carinthia is that 36% of all school-age children in Carinthia now attend bilingual primary school classes and learn German and Slovenian – voluntarily.
That is the real success of the European model: the fact that we are voluntarily becoming curious about our languages.
It makes me very happy to hear praise that we have introduced a bit of realism. I have no time for those who mutter that it is all hot air and will evaporate tomorrow. We need to prepare in a very professional manner for what we have to do, and the Finns will do just that. I wish them well. Matti Vanhanen and his team and Erkki Tuomioja and all the rest will do so just as we have, as will the Germans thereafter.
However, we still have something to learn, and not only culturally but also in terms of sport, from what is now happening. I have just worked out that, so far, we have seen 32 matches in the football world cup, of which 20 have pitted Europe against the rest of the world, that is to say against other continents. We have won twelve, drawn four and lost four. That is not bad for a global player and, if we do the same in our political dealings, nothing can go wrong anymore.
You are entirely right that we need to pay great attention to the transatlantic dialogue and its outcomes. If America and Europe work hand in hand rather than confronting each other, we can really get things moving. We are surely all aware of that. Notwithstanding legitimate critiques of American behaviour – to which we should not turn a blind eye - the American-European friendship and partnership is, moreover, an important foundation stone for the future. I am deeply convinced of this, and I want to express this conviction in this House, even if it may not be universally popular.
We shall therefore lay several very important milestones at this summit. Firstly, an agreement whereby Europe and America will take up arms against product piracy on the basis of very specific concrete actions. We also want to collaborate on the energy question, this being an area in which the Americans are in fact ahead of us. In fact, when it comes to research into renewable energy carriers, the Americans are well ahead of us. Together we could get things moving, partly in the interests of the Kyoto objectives, climate protection and a lot more. Foreign policy is also important. The Near East, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan all constitute important issues, and it goes without saying that we are not losing sight of long-term goals such as a transatlantic free-trade zone and an overall treaty.
You can be sure that the issues of human rights, Guantánamo and CIA overflights will naturally be discussed. I mentioned these matters personally during my visit to Washington in December. I also say this because, during the Austrian Presidency, we have begun a dialogue with legal experts - John Bellinger of the
and, now, the Office of the Legal Advisor in Austria - on what is to be done in practical terms. It is a little-known fact that Hans Winkler was also one of the pioneers of this dialogue, and I agreed the proceedings with Mr Bush in December. The fact that there are gaps in international law is obvious. These gaps are being discussed quite intensively in America, with decisions being made by the highest courts.
Yesterday’s Austrian ‘Standard’ published an interview with John Bellinger which I find very interesting. We have been able to eliminate some elements from the dispute that are of great importance to me, and I hope that tomorrow the situation will remain the same. There should be no part of the world in which human rights do not apply. There must be no torture, whatever the standard by which this is measured. There must be no abduction of persons and no detaining them in secret prisons or detention centres or whatever these might euphemistically be called. This must be expressed in the knowledge that at the same time - and we partly have the Americans to thank for this – we can and must do a great deal to export democracy, strengthen NGOs and strengthen civic or civil society. These issues are being discussed.
Secondly, I turn to the subject of transparency. I really do not want to fight an Austrian election, because that is not my intention. It is interesting, however, that the Austrian Greens have all left the Chamber. To accuse me of not seeking dialogue with the people seems to me to be a little unfair, for the ‘Café d’Europe’ was really an attempt to become involved with everyday life. The fact is, the idea of Europe originated in the coffee houses. Europe was born in the coffee houses of Europe. Moreover, Europe is still being created in the cafés of Europe, where many writers, philosophers and journalists are continuing what Coudenhove-Kalergi started. To dismiss Europe as a project of the elite is, if you will pardon my saying so, simply unjustified.
We are also exploiting the new media. I am surprised by the fact that our own website, ‘The future of Europe; Europe is listening’, has had eight million visitors. How many politicians have the opportunity to speak directly to eight million people? We have also had 32 million visitors to the Presidency website. In fact, I think that we can do more and that we should have the confidence to do more. This has nothing to do with self-congratulation. It is simply about working in a professional way with the new media.
I turn now to the subject of enlargement. This issue is very important to me, as, in 1998, I was the Austrian Foreign Minister and Council President when we began the enlargement process. It was sometimes an uphill struggle. Majority opinion in Austria was sometimes against me and my strategy. However, we remained steadfast and, today, we have, for example, in connection with what was the very contentious issue of the accession of the Czech Republic, a majority that is now pleased that that country joined the EU. I am very happy about this. That is to say, it is only right. It is just a question of standing up for enlargement, and Mr Rehn, who is investing a lot of time and energy in the matter, can confirm the need to make such a stand. Ten years ago, the wage and income differential between ourselves and the new Member States was 10:1. Today it is half that. This is a win-win situation. We can export, we have a virtual Hong Kong on our doorstep and we can profit from this impetus for growth. We just need to have faith in ourselves, to position ourselves well and to spread positive news rather than the usual negative rumours."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"State Department"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples