New EU-Russia agreement (debate)

In the last decade of the twentieth century the West failed to push back Russia from containing its imperial ambitions. In the first decade of the twenty-first century the West failed to establish a partnership for integrating Russia within the European system of security, stability, freedom and prosperity. In the second decade of the twenty-first century the West finds itself in front of an assertive Russia which is no longer the old enemy and not quite its ally, but which is in a contest of interests with it.

The problem is that the EU is unable to define a common position concerning its geo-strategic interests. Therefore it prefers to engage in a deadened way of exporting values by transforming the adoption of its standards beyond the need for interoperability into the conditionality for the progress of political cooperation.

Russia could not be forced to accept such a deal and the EU has no strength to impose it. The only way to reset the EU-Russia relations is by transferring the negotiations to the rational field of interests where the EU can promote a strategy of joint projects aimed at achieving a balanced multipolar global order and a secure common neighbourhood.

Permanent link to this article:

Preparations for the European Council meeting (22-23 November 2012) with particular reference to the Multiannual Financial Framework (debate)

The dispute over the multiannual financial framework is not about money but about the future of the EU. It is not about figures but about the political principles generating those figures.

A smaller European budget does not mean necessarily better spending, but more likely wasted resources and opportunities. We have to provide the EU with the financial resources necessary for achieving its objectives. Any disparity between needs, ambitions and funding is a loss.

A bigger EU budget does not mean bigger burdens on the shoulders of the national taxpayers but a better use and distribution of the taxpayers’ money. Bigger cohesion funds do not mean that the more productive Member States pay for the inefficiency of the less productive states. It means providing opportunities for growth for both more developed and less developed members. Solidarity is not charity but the only form of intelligent selfishness in difficult times.

On the background of the economic crisis, this Framework does not offer solutions for stimulating European solidarity, economic growth or job creation, but rather pushes for national selfishness, absurd austerity and nations’ fragmentation. Therefore the Council’s draft is unacceptable. Parliament and the Commission’s positions are the least one could support.

Permanent link to this article:

Grup vizitatori – Parlamentul European – Bruxelles (14.11.2012)

Permanent link to this article:

NATO şi structura globală de securitate: viitorul parteneriatelor bilaterale (8-10.11.2012)


Permanent link to this article:

EU-Israel agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products (debate)

Mr President, I want to thank Commissioner De Gucht for his important clarification.

The real problem of this agreement is neither technical nor legal. It is strictly political. Namely, it is about trying to impose our political views on Israel through trade leverages. This did not work in the past, and will definitely not work in the future. If we want to promote our values, we must first secure our geostrategic interests, otherwise our values are both in vain and in peril.

Our strategic interest in the present context of major turmoil in the Middle East requires strengthening our ties and cooperation with Israel. Therefore, and to this end, we should ratify ACAA now and not later. Procrastination is not a solution.

Permanent link to this article: