Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-371"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.37.3-371"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
There is no doubt that, despite naturally differing views, this debate has revealed areas of firm consensus, which I would like to highlight because some of them are important.
We are looking to build a new consensus on the enlargement and, let us be frank, the Turkey issue is a sensitive one that strongly divides public opinion in our countries. The fact that the Commission’s proposal – supported by the Finnish Presidency and formulated in close cooperation with the Finnish Presidency at every stage – obtained unanimous support from the Member States via their Foreign Ministers was crucial because we could have had a very serious problem on our hands today.
On an issue as sensitive and delicate as this, we have succeeded in achieving a position that we consider to be balanced, credible and fair, and today it obtained a resounding majority among the Members of this House who had their say. We will now hopefully be able to hold a proper strategic discussion on enlargement. I should like to underline Mr Stubb’s remarks, which I found highly pertinent. It is vital that European leaders at all levels, not just the Heads of State or Government, including the European Parliament and others in positions of political authority at national level, hold a serious debate on the issue of the enlargement, regardless of whether or not Europe sees enlargement as a great opportunity, which is precisely what enlargement represents for Europe, politically, economically and culturally, and I would even say historically. For this to happen it was important to ‘cleanse’ this debate of the most difficult issues that were on the table so that we could focus on the important business.
I hope the Council marks this new consensus. We need it and we need to have the courage to debate, with our citizens, what enlargement represents.
Earlier today I was in Berlin, taking part in an interview with Chancellor Merkel on a popular German television programme, in which the public asked us questions such as how much Germany stands to lose from enlargement and what companies would leave. My job was to explain that, for example, Germany is profiting hugely from enlargement; that enlargement is helping create jobs in Germany; that Germany went from EUR 17 billion in exports to what are now the new Member States in 1994 to around EUR 80 billion this year; that Germany exports more to the new Member States than it imports; and that enlargement is creating, rather than destroying jobs in the EU-15.
The enlargement has been positive for the EU, and this, in my view, has been the main contribution of the Council. Let us work to achieve a new consensus on the enlargement. I do not intend to go over the other issues that were explained so well by Mrs Lehtomäki.
I should like to express my thanks for the positive spirit of collaboration we have enjoyed with the Finnish Presidency and I would add, in response to a question raised, if I remember rightly, by Mrs Ludford – because this issue was not mentioned in my first speech – that the Commission vehemently condemns this so-called conference on the holocaust held in Teheran. If it were not so tragic, it would be laughable. It is wrong to insult the memory of so many victims of the holocaust in this way. On this issue too, we need to uphold a position of principle."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples