Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-21-Speech-3-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040421.3.3-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the transatlantic relationship is a co-element in Ireland's presidency programme and we are working very hard to reaffirm the strength, depth and the significance of that relationship, which will come as no surprise to anybody.
Let me make myself clear: I believe that the Commission has worked long and hard to ensure that the draft agreement strikes a balance between the rightful concerns to protect personal privacy and the need to increase security in the air for all passengers across the Atlantic. I accept and respect that not all Members of this House think that the balance has been properly struck. However, I would make the point to them that the Commission has to be commended for its work. Mr Watson mentioned another agreement and said that this is an agreement which may be the best-worst solution, but it is the solution that is available. He was talking about Cyprus. These words may well apply also to the agreement on which this House will vote shortly.
I believe the Commission has done as well as it could be expected to do and that the agreement on offer is the best we are going to get; certainly much better than we will get if we enter into some form of stasis and stand-off situation with the US authorities on this in the next few hours, because in reality they will take the decisions that they believe are necessary for their security.
I do not believe that if a European citizen on holiday in Florida has to queue for 18 or 19 hours in the heat of the day waiting for clearance they will thank any of us if we take an ill-informed decision. That is not to say that I do not respect the views of Members – of course I do. I have listened and I have read a great deal of the correspondence that has been exchanged over the last 48 hours here. I have discussed the issue and my concerns with Members. I understand fully and I appreciate the concerns. Of course people want to protect civil liberties but we also want to protect the reality and the reality is that if we make the wrong decision very few people in Europe will be thanking us in a month's time. Having said that, I respect any decision that this Parliament makes.
The deal which has been worked out by the Commission is a necessary one. In the circumstances it is a good deal. The status quo is unsustainable. Failure to support the draft agreement opens the way to uncertainty, particularly uncertainty for the airline industry. It will be detrimental to the interests and the needs of passengers.
That is the important point. I accept the concerns and the anxiety that we should have safeguards, certainly that there should be a finality on information that is transferred, but we need to take practical political decisions. We are politicians in a political assembly and we should take decisions. A balanced deal and the opportunity to work and put in place a good and balanced deal as soon as possible are things that we should all work for.
The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Brian Cowen, led the European Union Troika for the successful EU-US ministerial meeting in Washington on 1 March. It met with US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and with the National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice. Their discussions were extensive and frank and they covered a range of international issues of shared concern. In fact anybody who knows Minister Cowen will know that any discussion he enters into is usually frank, vigorous and to the point.
It is in the same spirit of partnership that the Taoiseach looks forward to welcoming President Bush to Ireland for the US-EU summit in June, a summit meeting which I know will bring added value to the relationship. It is a summit which has been criticised in some places, but the reality of it is that the United States exists and Europe exists and it would be foolhardy in the extreme if we did not continue to debate and discuss our relationship.
The other vital pillar of the transatlantic relationship is of course the European Union's close and productive relationship with Canada. In fact when we talk about the transatlantic relationship we all too often forget that reality. From our shared history and from our shared values, from political pluralism and democracy and the rule of law, as well as on human rights, there was so much evidence of our firm attachment to the United Nations and to multilateralism. Europe and Canada have a great deal in common and the relationship between Europe and Canada is a close one. It is a productive relationship and it is one that requires recognition by both sides from time to time.
It is in this context that the very successful EU-Canada summit in Ottawa on 18 March saw the launch of two major new initiatives – the EU-Canada Partnership Agenda and the framework of a new bilateral trade and investment enhancement agreement.
The summit in Ottawa also gave a chance for the President of the Council and Prime Minister Martin to lead their EU and Canadian teams in wide-ranging discussions on major international issues, including looking at ways to promote effective global governance through revitalised international institutions. I should say – from personal experience of having worked for a very brief time with CEDA in Canada – that the Canadians bring a huge amount to the table in this particular regard, something which they do quietly and unobtrusively and which is all too frequently ignored.
Politically and economically the European Union and the United States have never been more interdependent. While it is not possible to be in full agreement on all issues – friends very seldom are, and a sign of mature friendship is that they can differ even on significant issues – it is important that any differences that exist are managed in a way which avoids damaging the overall relationship.
In closing I want to say that I am very conscious that our transatlantic dialogue is formed more than by just what happens at official and government levels. For this reason we were very happy two weeks ago to host in Ireland the 58th interparliamentary meeting between the European Parliament and the US Congress under the joint chairmanship of Mr Nicholson and Henry Hyde. It was my very great pleasure to actually host one of those meetings and it was a quite remarkable exchange. I want to commend the Members of this House for this particular initiative.
It is very important that this House continues to have a very lively dialogue with Congress, because my own personal experience is that all too often in Congress Europe is seen through a very hazy glass. The type of one-to-one relationship which this House has established with its counterparts in Congress is very welcome. As I said, I witnessed the exchanges at first hand. They are healthy, positive and productive. I had the opportunity to meet the MEPs involved. The debates were quite extraordinarily wide-ranging and, as the meeting was held in Ireland, much of it went on in my own constituency. A good time was had by all as well and there is no harm in that! The presidency is fully aware of how closely Parliament is involved in taking the transatlantic relationship forward. We celebrate and commend that good work.
I realise that some of the words I have said will not fall easily on some of the ears in this House, but they are made against the background that friends can sometimes disagree, even on important issues.
We all know that the European Union and US relationship has been through a difficult period, not least over the policy on Iraq. There have been tensions and disagreements both across the Atlantic and indeed within Europe. It is good to remind ourselves from time to time that nobody has an absolute monopoly on wisdom.
Similarly, on the way forward in the Middle East there have been differences in approach between the United States and the European Union. We are nonetheless prepared to keep working on the basis of the roadmap, including through the mechanism of the Quartet. For too long now, a negative image of the transatlantic relationship has been portrayed in certain circles and media. It often seems to be an iron law of the media that disagreement is more noteworthy than agreement. I suppose, in a sense, it is easy to see how disagreement makes good news – or certainly good copy.
It is important, therefore, that we, as elected representatives, should inform our citizens that, overall, the transatlantic relationship is extremely productive and remains positive. In January the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, said in this Parliament – and we should remind ourselves of his words – that 'the world is a better and a safer place when the European Union and the United States work together, when they pool their considerable energy and resources to achieve our shared goals based on our shared values.'
The Irish presidency is focusing on pragmatic cooperation with our US partners and pragmatism, rather than ideology, should inform our approach. We are trying to work closely together on many foreign policy areas, including counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, Afghanistan, the Middle East and the western Balkans – to single out just a few of the dossiers in which we have a common interest and to single out just a few of the areas where we are working closely together. We will not agree on all those areas, but at least we are working along similar lines.
On economic and trade issues in particular, it is important to put any transatlantic differences into perspective. Ireland, during its presidency, is seeking to focus on the positive economic agenda between the United States and the European Union, while effectively managing the small number of outstanding disputes which account for slightly less than 3% or of our overall trade policies.
I want to take this opportunity to address one particular point of immediate concern in terms of our relationship with the United States. I followed very closely the debate in this Parliament on the international agreement with the United States on the transfer of passenger information. I am conscious of the concerns that have been raised, including the concerns about the need to protect citizens' rights to privacy and to redress in the event of error. I fully understand the point made by Members that it
important to have a way of addressing errors in the PNR area.
I am also conscious of the need to address the very real concerns that exist in the US about the terrorist threat. This time last week I was in New York and, for the very first time, went to the scene of the horror at the World Trade Center. I have been in New York four times since 9/11 and I have always avoided going down there, because I, as we all did, watched what happened on the television, and I did not wish to see the pain. So I understand in that context why the United States and why certain factions of people within the United States see the need to adopt a very stringent role and attitude in their response to terrorism and, in particular, why they are concerned about this issue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples