Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-06-Speech-3-007-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110706.2.3-007-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Barroso, chairs of the political groups, friends, honourable Members from all the Member States of the European Union and of all political persuasions, I am aware that I am in a place which, for the European Union and all Europeans who treat the idea of Europe seriously, is something special. It is a place which guarantees that the memory of where Europe has come from will be kept alive in our minds. In particular – this is how I view the many years of the European Parliament’s work – it is an institution and a place which has never stopped believing in the reason for having a united Europe. I say this not because it is the right thing to say, but primarily because my personal experience tells me that this is the case. The European Parliament has been extremely consistent in working for the unification of Europe, and is still working for this today. This unification does not just mean the accession of individual countries, but also has a more profound significance, thanks to which the citizens of the European Union, who have such a varied history and who are sometimes encumbered by the heavy baggage of history and their own experience, feel that Europe and the European Union are their political home. It was a decision of the European Parliament to entrust the office of President of the European Parliament to a Pole which meant, among other things, that the division in the European Union between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Europe finally lost its meaning and became a thing of the past.
I know that not everyone shares this view, although I am convinced that irrespective of whether they are deeply convinced Europeans or sceptics, everyone shares the system of values on which the united Europe is founded. We may criticise one or other aspect of Europe as an institution, but no one in this Chamber questions the validity of liberty, human rights, democracy, freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Let us observe that on a world scale, Europe is the place where – even if not everything is going well for us – the fundamental values with which we all agree are the best protected in the world. It cannot be the case, and I am profoundly convinced of this, that here in Europe, doubts are growing as to its validity, but outside Europe, just as happened 10 or 20 years ago, millions of people are longing to be able to live in a civilisation with the political, social and economic conditions which we Europeans enjoy. Sometimes we stop believing that this is the best place on earth, but everyone outside the European Union knows that this is the best place on earth.
This is not ideology. The problem of illegal immigration takes up so much of our debates, and we do, of course, have to deal with this somehow, but while we are on the subject, let us notice that the direction of this immigration is always the same, and has been for decades. Never from the European Union to other parts of the world, but always into the European Union from outside. By their decisions and the way they flee places where they can expect servitude, poverty or distress, people themselves show us every day that Europe is indeed the best place in the world, and that no one has yet thought of anything better. This is the case, after all, not because God is minded that people should live better here than in other parts of the world. Manna does not fall from heaven here. Things are better here because we have persevered in strict faithfulness to the fundamental values on which the united Europe is built.
The memory of where Europe has its roots is also a very important foundation of our thinking, today, in connection with the crisis. We often talk about Greece. Some people associate Greece only with financial problems and breaches of the rules of financial discipline.
Firstly, let us not look for a scapegoat. Let us ask ourselves if we are sure that we have all been faithful to the principles we set ourselves when we were looking for ways to combat the crisis.
Secondly, let us also remember that in our European consciousness, Greece does not mean painful financial problems, but problems which are, in fact, somewhat trivial. I am not treating them lightly, but they are trivial in nature. Greece is also the experiment which, 2 500 years ago, taught people and politicians – feuding city-states – what is meant by solidarity in the face of a global threat. After all, we all have our roots there – we would not be in this Chamber, and there would not be a Europe, if people who had once been at odds over minor interests had not got together one day and said: we can and we must be together when such a challenge arises. So for me, I associate Greece much more with Pericles than with today’s demonstrations over financial cuts. I say this because an effective fight against the crisis must have this kind of historical memory, so that we know what we are actually defending.
The Polish priorities, or rather Europe’s priorities during the Polish Presidency, are in line with our conviction that the more we have of Europe, the less we will have of the crisis – I mean Europe understood as a guarantee of the values to which I referred. So this is why we are looking for a Europe which is secure in several ways, and this is why it will be our priority for Europe to be secure, including from the obvious point of view of its military security. It is high time a debate was begun about how Europe will be able to take coordinated action in a future situation of danger. We are talking about a Europe which is secure in terms of energy, food supply and raw materials. Security is the key to understanding the phenomenon of Europe.
There is a second priority, the validity of which I strongly believe in – the clear progress which we want to achieve in terms of the Single Market, including the developing Internet market. Freedom, and this includes removing more barriers which are hampering development of the free market, can, as it has in the past, be a source of growth for Europe. If Europe is not just security but also prosperity, then we must believe anew that the sources of prosperity have always been the same: unrestricted human enterprise, a minimum of barriers, boldness in making decisions, the priority of people over institutions, the priority of the market over the state and equal rules of play for everyone in the market. So this is why the Single Market and its development will be our second priority.
There is a third matter to which we want to devote a considerable amount of energy – an open Europe. If we are successful – and I believe we will be – in building a secure and well protected Europe without internal barriers, then we will not have to be afraid about opening that Europe up to others.
I remember, too, something which has certainly already passed into history, but it is, for me, a living memory. I am thinking of decisions taken by the European Parliament which showed a belief in Europe and gave a feeling of the meaning of Europe to all those who, for many years, could only dream of Europe. I remember very clearly when the Solidarity movement, the great dream of the Poles – which was also about Europe – was broken by the imposition of martial law in Poland, and a matter of hours later, the European Parliament gave a very clear signal that it had not forgotten those who were not being given the chance to live in freedom. I remember, too, that when, many years later, along with half of Europe, we regained the independence of our countries and the freedom of our citizens, but were in a state of total economic collapse which involved, among other things, a gigantic level of debt, it was once again the European Parliament which issued a very strong signal calling for the radical debt reduction which allowed Poland and many other countries to get back on their feet. It was a decision which showed European solidarity to be of the highest quality. It was a decision which, over the next 20 years, allowed tens of millions of Europeans to escape from an economic crisis and a crisis of civilisation, a crisis which was incomparably deeper than the phenomena which we are calling a crisis today. What happened at that time – and this was also thanks to the European Parliament and to everyone who believed in the significance of solidarity as the foundation of a united Europe – is today, I think, an excellent lesson for those who do not believe that a united Europe, a Europe which believes in its own abilities, will also find a remedy for the present crisis. I would like to say once again to those who do not remember those events: for all those Europeans who had to spend several decades of their lives in poverty and oppression, today’s crisis is an important challenge, but is not an insurmountable one, and does not bear comparison with the one from which we emerged thanks to the solidarity shown by the whole of Europe. In relation to this, I would like to get straight to the point by setting out what, in my opinion, are the most important areas, not only for the next six months of the Polish Presidency, but what are also permanent areas of responsibility and permanent challenges for the whole of Europe.
The next six months also mean progress in negotiations with those who aspire to be in Europe – a Europe which is also open to those who perhaps will never be part of our Union, but who share the essential values of our community and who, in recent months, have shown this to be the case. I refer to Europe’s southern neighbours.
The Eastern Partnership, completion of the accession process for Croatia by signing the Treaty, the association agreement with Ukraine, judicious and well thought-out assistance for those who want democracy and freedom in North Africa – these are tasks which, if we perform them well, can also strengthen the European Union itself. The vision we are going to want to propose is a very practical one. We want more Europe not only in Europe itself, but also in the countries which lie around Europe, if we understand Europe to be that system of values which we agreed upon when the European Union was founded. I do realise the Presidency lasts only for six months, and I do not have exaggerated ideas about the tools which the Presidency has at its disposal. I know the Treaty of Lisbon. I do not overestimate the role of individuals in history, although they are not roles which should be ignored. Despite the modest tools available to the Presidency, and despite the fact that this is a time of crisis which we are feeling so acutely, I am certain we will contribute a great deal of Polish enthusiasm, Polish energy and Polish optimism, something which has allowed us to come through the crisis fairly safely, because we really do believe in Europe and we want, together with you
and by carrying out these practical tasks, to enable us to open a fresh chapter of investment in Europe, and to help us all to believe in Europe again. I know this is possible, and in this work I will be at your service, at everyone’s service without exception, for the full six months. I am counting on your help. Thank you.
This is the simplest of questions; there is nothing complicated about it. Is the answer to the crisis – both to the immediate one related to the financial crisis and the situation of some countries in Europe, particularly in the south of Europe, and the answer to the deeper crisis, the crisis of confidence in Europe, the global crisis – is the answer to be a departure from Europe, a reduction of what is European and held in common, or is it to be what we have proved over many years and what has worked well?
Both the experience of Europe as a community, as well as the personal experience of every one of us, tell us that the best response of Europeans – the best answer Europeans have come up with – is a united Europe. There is something I would like to stress as strongly as possible – I have, indeed, spoken about this many times in the presence of many of you who are here in this Chamber today, because I am not making this speech just for the purposes of today’s inauguration of the Presidency – a united Europe, its institutions, its budget and its goals are not the cause of the crisis. We know very well, after all, where the sources of the current financial crisis are, and it would be a wrong answer and the worst possible answer if we were to believe those who are saying: let us cut back on Europe and this will be our answer to the crisis. History shows that when Europeans have believed that the right response to threats is a rise in manifestations of nationalism, statism and protectionism, this has invariably ended in disaster.
Today, we are not faced by such great dangers as in the past, but the historical awareness – the knowledge of what the history of Europe has been like from the beginning – forces us to believe in the recipe of solidarity among nations, solidarity among people, a readiness to help when others need it, and solidarity understood not as charity, but as working together in the common interest – where sometimes some have to give more, so that those who need help now will, at some time in the future, be able to give back even more.
We sometimes hear, today, that the best response to the financial crisis, or the crisis precipitated by events in North Africa and the associated rise in illegal immigration, is to increase the number of barriers inside Europe. I would like to say that the discussion about Schengen is a basic and extremely graphic illustration of the dilemma Europe is facing, today. From our point of view, it is in Europe’s interest to protect what I think are the fundamental rights of its citizens, which include free movement within the European Union without borders
and this is a value which we should rigorously uphold. This does not, after all, conflict with our conviction that the external borders of the European Union should be well guarded. The reason we are building the Union, and this includes when we enlarge it, is also to enable every member to have as much freedom as possible as part of the Union. The Union will be safe if we guard its external borders well. We can extend those borders and we should enlarge them, but creating barriers inside the Union is not the way to protect our Union. This is an incorrect response
and this is why strengthening Frontex will be such an important area of work, and not just for these six months. I do understand all of those who are worried by the emigration situation, but they are looking for precisely the erroneous solution I have described. We have to understand them, but we must also take steps to protect Europe from a reintroduction of internal barriers.
In the context of the crisis, we sometimes also talk about what should be done with the European budget, which is, without doubt, one of the European Union’s most important tools. Sometimes we do not believe there is any point in strengthening the European institutions. I think that in view of this dilemma, it is extremely important for us, today, to adopt a stance which is open and free from hypocrisy. I am certain that the answer to the crisis is more Europe and more European integration
and this requires strong European institutions. I believe this profoundly, but that belief is also underpinned by the experience of an entire generation of millions of Europeans who once lived on the other side of the former Iron Curtain. All of our experience tells us that more Europe – which does not mean more ideology or more of a kind of hypocritical philosophy – more Europe means very practical decisions. More Europe means the judicious spending of European money, European institutions which are capable of making decisions, more European policy, more European leadership. If we do not take up this challenge, we will be increasingly powerless in the face of the global dimensions of the crisis. Our experience tells us, too, that for the individual, more Europe means quite simply more freedom, more prosperity, more practical solidarity, more security. Is a united Europe not the answer to our experience from the First and Second World Wars? Is it not the case that here in Europe, a united Europe is the best idea for protecting us from ourselves? In our history, we have also been a danger to ourselves. An integrated Europe of free citizens is also a Europe which is internally secure, but is also one which is safe from external threats."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples