Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.10.3-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the European Council, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak about the future of Europe from this tribunal, which represents the most democratic institution of the European Union.
We defend the doctrine of 'security and freedom', but not of 'security instead of freedom'. Equality is defined differently depending on the point of view from which you view the world. Immigrants are demanding equal treatment with the citizens of their host countries and, sometimes, their demand takes on dramatic proportions. The unemployed are demanding equal opportunities as regards the potential for a dignified life and people living in poverty are claiming the same access to health and education as high earners.
Humanity is therefore the principle of European enlightenment which is nowadays proving to be the major demand of European societies and the major risk for the leaders of Europe.
How can humanity be given meaning? Some lessons from the long process of European unification already harbour historic truths. Development without social justice is meaningless. Prosperity without wellbeing is simply a contradiction. The European Union is currently going through a period of reflection, as the interval starting after the referenda on the European Constitution has been called. I would say that this period should mainly be a process of collective self-knowledge, a path which, if followed consistently and honestly, will bring us to a deeper definition and to the essence of the European Union itself, because the real question that needs to concern us is not technocratic; it is philosophical: what sort of Europe do we want? What sort of world are we fighting for? What is the vision we are trying to implement? Is that vision utopian or a realistic ambition?
We have good reason to be optimistic. The European Union has proven its historic resistance and its attachment to its objectives. Frequently there are delays, other times there are retractions, sometimes there is lassitude, but still the road leads on. It leads on and does not stop and, most importantly of all, the citizens of Europe, despite any disappointments, continue to invest their hopes for a better life and a better world in the European idea. We consider a constituent element of the global process to be dialogue between cultures and, as we saw recently, a lack of understanding, trust and dialogue can have serious consequences, especially when there is cumulative indignation and a feeling of injustice.
The recent enlargement of the European Union, with the accession of ten new Member States, caused a real shockwave to resound through Europe. The view prevailed then – and rightly so – that the cost of not enlarging would be greater than the cost of enlargement. Enlargement had an historic and a moral dimension. The accession of the states of central and Eastern Europe brought the division of the old continent to an end. The historic unity of all its peoples was restored in the face of a common destiny. Enlargement was certainly a very important development in the Union from the point of view of foreign relations too. Its geopolitical – and hence its strategic size – shifted significantly, giving weight to central Europe and making it a direct neighbour of the crucial area of the Middle East.
The accession of Bulgaria and Romania will be especially important, as will the prospects of the completion of Union in the Western Balkans at the next stage, once the conditions have been met. We welcome this strategic enlargement towards southeast Europe. My country and I personally, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, have played a leading part in its processing and adoption.
As far as the accession procedure of Turkey is concerned, I should like to emphasise that my country is in favour of its integration. However it must be clear that entry to the Union depends on the full adoption of its principles and rules and that this is a non-negotiable rule of European civilisation which cannot be bent for the sake of any broader geopolitical expediencies. It is certain – and this affected the result of the referenda on the European Constitution – that geographical extension preceded political integration, and this has resulted in acute concerns, justified unease and, at times, disappointment. The answer to this disappointment cannot but be to speed up the rate of the political enlargement process.
Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union was built on the ruins of the Second World War. It was built as a force for peace and stability, prosperity and progress. At the end of the cold war, the final wall within Europe fell, apart from the Green Line, which continues to divide Cyprus in two, defining ...
... a major European problem which still awaits resolution.
Because its Members are elected directly, the European Parliament has the best possible credentials from the citizens of Europe and the clearest instructions to express their concerns and problems. I believe that its institutional role will be strengthened as the process of European integration progresses and I am convinced that this development is the natural way forward for our political culture, especially in times when the citizens of Europe feel insecure about their future and, often, remote from the decision-making centres.
A Union of 25 Member States today, and more tomorrow, cannot exist and prosper except as an independent, strong and unified presence in the international system, with all that this implies.
The war against Iraq revealed the split in the European Union in a dramatic fashion. There was not one voice, one decision or one direction; there was sterile confrontation and clear, dividing lines that injured the peoples of Europe. The cohesive fabric between the Member States cannot be just a common currency and a common flag; it must be a system of principles and values, a common political and social culture.
The challenges are before us. The crisis of Iran's nuclear programme, the parallel energy crisis which is imminent and which may be worse than expected, terrorism, developments in the Balkans in the face of the finalisation of the status of Kosovo, conditions in Africa and the problem of AIDS are situations which require the European Union to articulate its own unified word and formulate its own strategy. We hope there will soon be stability in Iraq; the long-suffering Iraqi people are in real need of it. The resolution of the Palestinian problem, with a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine, in conjunction with stability in Iraq, will also restore the political geography of what is – from the energy point of view – a very crucial area, with which Europe has preferential, historic, political, cultural and commercial relations. I also consider it important that the European Union has decided to continue sending aid to the Palestinians, given that depriving them of it will only exacerbate the problems.
As far as relations with Iran are concerned, we are categorically opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, at the same time, we believe that full use must be made of the possibilities of diplomacy which, in my estimation, have not been exhausted, in order to reach agreement. This agreement is being sought by European and by all communities, which constantly send messages in favour of peace and dialogue between cultures.
Ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the Lisbon Strategy is precisely to provide an answer to the concerns of Europeans relating to development, unemployment and social cohesion with financial prudence and respect for the social state. The objectives of this strategy have not been achieved through its implementation. To put it plainly, the Lisbon equation, which was correct in conception, continues to have elements of academic rhetoric as regards its implementation plan, a rhetoric which is attractive for the connoisseurs, but incomprehensible or contradictory to the average citizen. Often, the average citizen feels that he is living in Wittgenstein's nightmare. The words are used to hide the meaning. Let us not delude ourselves; it is clear that today, in the Union, there are two basic schools of thought as far as the implementation of the Lisbon objectives is concerned: the group that maintains that the development and the survival of the social state under conditions of globalisation can only be achieved with radical reforms of employment relations, and the group that considers that the Lisbon Strategy can be implemented under conditions of globalisation without abolishing the social state. I consider that differences of opinion are the basic privilege of democracy and hence the foundation stone of our Union. However, in order for there to be a synthesis of opinion, open dialectic is needed in European society, because it is the citizens who will give the ultimate answer while we, the politicians, will be responsible for conducting this necessary dialogue.
Life is hard in much of Europe today. Despite the fight against unemployment, the minor successes achieved are not enough to combat this major problem. Instead of the numbers of jobs increasing, the unemployment and underemployment indicators are rising in several countries. Instead of the vulnerable groups of the population acquiring greater social protection, there are increasing masses of excluded persons. Instead of the quality of life improving for everyone, the dividing lines of the society of the two-thirds are deepening. Farmers worry about the reform of the common agricultural policy. Young people agonise over jobs; and then worry about being sacked and having to find another job and, at the end, about their pensions and insurance. Workers worry about their jobs being moved outside Europe.
The worst thing is that society has developed a deep distrust of the decision-making centres. The reason is obvious: there is a serious crisis of confidence between politicians and employment relation theoreticians. There is acute social insecurity. The fact is that no development strategy will bring about results unless it is people-orientated, unless it starts from the principle of protection for the weak and steers clear of international realities, as an area in which the operation of the market will not be the only regulatory factor
unless it invests in the quality of education, research and the challenges of new technologies. This is not political romanticism. It is respect for the principles on which the European construct was founded: the principles of equality and solidarity. It is also political realism, because we have already seen not once, but several times, that when collective insecurity intensifies, when inequalities and exclusion worsen, social tensions manifest in extreme ways and have unforeseen consequences. As history has taught us, this can cause dangerous dynamics outside the political system. Human societies have passed through various stages of dominant economic theories. However, whenever the voice of the people was ignored, tensions and reversals swept away both theories and theoreticians.
The future of Europe will be shaped by the citizens of Europe and will depend on their participation in public affairs, which is both necessary and desirable in a democracy. As Thucydides says in
: 'Only those who take no part are regarded not as unambitious but as useless', describing with timeless accuracy the importance of active citizens to democracy. That was centuries ago and yet active citizens are still the alpha and the omega of how we define our course towards a Europe with a global mission, a Europe which will be not only a bastion of democracy and human rights, but also a standard for the right to work, development and social cohesion, a European Union which will be a superpower of humanity and the place in which I stand today, the European Parliament, has the supreme responsibility of making the voice of the citizen heard as clearly and as loudly as possible.
I should like to start with a personal comment: coming from the generation that suffered under Nazism, I experienced the Second World War first hand. This experience determined the start of the European way, an historic process with the attributes of a peace plan. Out of the ruins of war there was born the hope and the vision of a brotherhood of the peoples of Europe. This is an historic achievement which constitutes a model of stability in the global system.
The path opened up by Jean Monnet in establishing specific forms of cooperation and avoiding ambitious theoretical schemes resulted in the creation of a union, the democratic, social and development model of which, despite its shortcomings, has rightly earned global admiration.
The implementation of the European vision, which is still under way, is inevitably affected by international political and economic events. Globalisation, a monopole world, emergent economies, mass migration, the influence of non-institutional centres and the formulation of political decisions, the asymmetrical threat of international terrorism, environmental problems – combined with an insecure energy supply – are creating a complicated and fast-changing international environment which is creating both challenges and opportunities for the European Union. It is a state of affairs on which the citizens of Europe need to take an honest stand.
While preparing the speech I am giving today, I browsed through the electronic dialogue with the citizens of Europe on the European Union's website. I read interesting views, mainly from people living in different countries, but who have the same concerns. The conclusion which I drew from this exercise is that the European Union is being called upon today to return to the principles of European enlightenment that inspired its beginnings. Freedom, equality and humanity are the high ideals which determine the content of the European idea and which need to be given meaning again today.
(
)
Freedom is now a concept which is examined in conjunction with that of security. The citizens of Europe and everyone living in Europe do not want to feel threatened in a world suffering under international terrorism. At the same time, however, they reject compromises on the protection of individual rights and personal freedoms."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Standing ovation for the President of the Hellenic Republic)"1
"Pericles' Funeral Oration"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples