Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-05-Speech-4-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080605.2.4-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not agree with Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner that it is appropriate to speak French this morning.
Along with my mother tongue, it is my favourite language, Commissioner, but I think that this morning in particular it is inappropriate to speak in French because President Sarkozy’s mistake from the outset was to give the impression that the Union for the Mediterranean was a Franco-French idea. However, he has since become more reasonable, and that is why he must be congratulated, Mr Bonsigniore.
May I also remind you that when Mr Sarkozy came to the House right at the beginning, in order to introduce the idea of the Mediterranean Union to the Conference of Presidents for the first time, I asked him: 'Can you tell me which role the Federal Republic of Germany should play in your Mediterranean Union?', and he answered:
. We have moved on in the meantime and have clarified these issues. That is why the approach that you have described, Commissioner, is the right one.
I am firmly convinced that there are three central challenges that we have to deal with in the framework of the Mediterranean Union. First of all, I think social stability is the precondition for peace, but nowhere in the North or the South is social stability at greater risk than in the Mediterranean region. Nowhere else is the direct clash between immense wealth, on the one hand, and immense poverty, on the other, greater or more visible – indeed, tangible – than in the Mediterranean region, and nowhere are the confrontation and the ensuing tensions for us Europeans greater than in the Mediterranean.
That being the case, the Mediterranean Union is a project which could lead to more peace and stability via the economic integration of our two regions, so it is an extremely good idea, and it is one which we Socialists therefore fully endorse.
Secondly, what makes this an even more appealing concept is that it makes multilateralism the basis of cooperation, not only within the framework of the Mediterranean Union but also as a project of regional cooperation, which cannot act as a model for the world but could give rise to joint initiatives which could contribute to greater stability on a global level as well.
The third point which is so important for us Socialists is that we have managed to avoid creating any parallel processes. The Barcelona Process – for which, incidentally, a sum of around EUR 15.5 billion is made available in the financial perspective to 2013 – was, after all, also launched for the reasons which I have just outlined and which formed the political basis for the Mediterranean Union. Through the Mediterranean Union, the Barcelona Process is now being taken to another level. It is being strengthened and stepped up, but without any new institutions being created outside the existing EU institutions. That being the case, the Commission's role and also our role as Parliament – and, incidentally, the role of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly as well – is a special role. It is a role which has already been defined and which does not need or demand any new institutions or more red tape.
In political, institutional and economic terms, and in terms of the practical objectives set, we are now on the right track with the Mediterranean Union. I think that gives cause for celebration on 14 July in Paris as well."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples