Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.3.3-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have been told that we are making history so many times this morning, but given the number of Members present in the House, it would appear we are doing so on the quiet. There are more people on the terraces than in the Hemicycle itself. We clearly find these historic moments difficult, but that is another story.
Moreover, it has been said that it is clear that the longed-for unification of Europe currently underway, is the result of struggle of the peoples of Eastern Europe against totalitarianism, just as post-war Europe resulted from the war the peoples of Europe waged against the Fascist regimes that had dominated the continent. European unification was therefore based on the constitutional and constituent concepts we hold dear, namely democracy and anti-totalitarianism. I do not believe there is anyone in this House who would not subscribe to this idea. Our group will therefore vote unanimously in favour of all the countries on the list today joining the European Union.
The societies of the countries of Eastern Europe who are about to join the Union are both fascinating and riven by suffering. These societies are both reformist and conformist. They expect the European Union to herald a European way of life. They want a better future. In part, they hope their democracies will gain the stability they need. This is why I believe the House must, without any reservations, vote to demonstrate its overwhelming support for enlargement.
The issue is more complicated when it comes to discussing our capacity for enlargement. I cannot fully subscribe to Commissioner Verheugen’s proposals on this. Some members of my group will vote against the Brok report because they do not think we are up to this historic challenge. We have not been able to establish the deeper Union we need for enlargement to be successful. There are a number of relevant examples. At issue are not only agricultural subsidies but also our failure to reform the CAP because of selfish national interests. We have failed to create a social Europe because of selfish national interests. We have been unable to come together not just on monetary policy, but also on social and political issues.
On this historic day, it is important to encapsulate the surreal situation in which we find ourselves today into a single sentence. After what could be termed an ‘institutional rape’ we have been forced to agree on a historic issue within the scope of a common declaration that in essence says ‘in fact it was not too serious and it did not do any harm’. This is how we are establishing the Europe of tomorrow. I would stress that it is our future that it is at stake, over and above the turns this three-way discussion that has gone on for days has taken. Our future can be encapsulated in a single phrase: do we want to be revolutionaries or conservatives? We cannot have it both ways.
The situation is very simple. If we want to want to keep the Europe of the Fifteen as it is today, enlargement will cause a crisis. We will experience terrible difficulties because it just will not work. It would be sheer folly to believe a Council of 25 members could ever reach unanimous agreement. It would be sheer folly to believe unanimity could ever be reached on complicated matters, and especially on foreign policy. In his report, Mr Brok, explains that transatlantic relations must be strengthened. I would agree with this, but only on condition that these relations are totally remodelled. An enlarged Europe will be completely different from that which emerged from the 1950s. An enlarged Europe will be an independent and autonomous body; and I hope it will be proud to be so. Such a Europe must make the United States change its attitude on one key issue. The Americans must realise that Europe is not an ally who will unthinkingly and inevitably follow their lead. They must realise that we will only support them when we think we should. They have to understand that when we in Europe want to say no, we will say no. This point is not included in the Brok report. Anyone who has been to the United States will know the Americans find the concept difficult to understand. I would therefore like to say this: anyone who votes in favour of enlargement today, anyone who supports the need for enlargement, must also support the establishment of an agreement on the fundamental reform of today’s Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples