Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-01-Speech-3-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991201.7.3-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first I will admit that when we tried to meet both the demands of time and adhere to priorities we chose as the basis of talks certain of those issues which we knew would be the most important topics at Helsinki. Thus, I have touched less in my speech on certain other matters, attention to which has been drawn here quite justifiably. However, I can reassure and console the Members of the European Parliament and say that these issues have not been forgotten.
With regard once more to enlargement, we have endeavoured to remind the applicant countries, just as has been said here, that we are not accepting new governments as members: we are accepting new countries. It is very important to say to the governments of applicant countries that they must also involve the opposition and the whole population in their plans, just as has been asked of them. I have said that the European Union cannot just accept young, well educated males living in cities, but we are taking everyone, including the elderly, those who live in rural areas, the less well-educated and women. The plans must thus also take account of that. Hopefully, we shall also be able to speak with them about social cohesion, nuclear safety and security, as well as many other things. I have tried to convince the applicant countries of these matters by saying that although not all these points will be dealt with at the negotiations, it might just be that they will attract so much attention in the parliaments of Member States that the applicant countries would be assured of swift acceptance if they began to attend to these matters right away, matters that will, in any case, be very important when they eventually become members.
A final word about the IGC: if we acquired a legal character for the European Union at the next IGC many issues would be resolved. A legal personality, which is a matter that has been raised here in many speeches, was one of the questions that the majority supported but, where, unfortunately, consensus was not forthcoming. This was just another example of that problem.
Firstly, as regards the question of employment, we regard this as very important, and we have made preparations, as I said in my speech, to ensure that history’s first Summit conference on employment is a real success during Portugal’s presidential term. The special theme in matters of employment during the Finnish Presidency has been
the status of the aged. There was an informal meeting of the Employment and Social Affairs Council on this subject, and we have also had a conference at ministerial level specifically on the topic of equality. In addition, we have raised the issue of the information society in the area of employment. A Council resolution was adopted on 29 November regarding employment in the information society and the social dimension.
I will give my replies in a slightly different order from the speakers, but as Mr Harbour seems to be here still, I will say to him too that the Commission is presenting its extensive information society initiative to the European Council in Helsinki. The document will only be published on December 8. The issue is to be debated properly at the special Summit meeting in Portugal. The main focus of information society matters at Helsinki will be the consultation between the information society and competitiveness. This is an angle that has achieved prominence during the Finnish Presidency and will probably now be discussed in connection with issues to do with the economy, employment and competitiveness. Thus, there is also an intention in the conclusions to speed up the development of a regulated environment for electronic commerce. During the Finnish presidential term we have made progress in major projects for regulation, but the finishing touches will be undertaken during the next presidential term. So the results are somewhat better, or I might even venture to say, substantially better than was perhaps evident from my speech.
Then I would like to answer one separate question, which is linked to the subject of enlargement. With regard to the question of the Roma people, which was raised here, I would like to say for my own part that I think it is right to focus attention on human rights, both generally and, in particular, regarding the rights of minorities, both in the European Union, but especially in those countries seeking membership. We have had experience of applicant countries during the Finnish presidential term, particularly with regard to the poor treatment of the Roma people, to the extent that large numbers of them have left those countries to apply for asylum. There are already nearly one thousand of them in Finland, if memory serves. The country to hold the presidency has not wished to draw the conclusion that the cause of this might only be found in Slovakia, Romania or in some other individual country. This is a common problem, and, for that reason, we intend to raise the issue, not in connection with enlargement, but as a general part of the Summit conference agenda, that Member States and applicant countries must improve the implementation of the rights of minorities. The country to hold the presidency is also offering to cooperate in this regard.
Then I will turn to what are actually the main issues. Firstly, I will say in all honesty, regarding the Intergovernmental Conference, that we are unanimous on the issues omitted from the Treaty of Amsterdam. Many of us here have tried to suggest that it would take just a little effort to try and solve these problems. Members of Parliament, they were not omitted from the Treaty of Amsterdam because they would have been minor issues. They were left out because they were very difficult questions and they have not got any easier in the meantime. However, a clear definition of the task will give us the chance now to succeed, as will the pressure to ensure the matter is put right.
In addition, I clearly listed for you those issues that are closely connected with these subject areas, and that can possibly be added to the agenda. The third group is those issues that one or more Member States have raised. I venture to say that, although Finland is still a young Member State, I am at present one of the oldest foreign ministers in terms of years in office. There are only a couple of us ministers left who were at the previous Intergovernmental Conference. At that IGC we gained the support of 12, 13 or 14 Member States in quite a number of areas. But we did not receive support from the full 15, which would have been required for example for these majority decisions. In this connection, I am not at all sceptical, but I am realistic with regard to the fact that, if we want to get certain issues through quickly, we have to concentrate on those that are to some extent ready. Then there is this other process, whereby the big, longer-term plans are addressed. We can make progress just as soon as we are unanimous on them, but they are not vital with regard to enlargement.
Regarding the participation of the European Parliament, I still cannot say what the solution will be at the Helsinki Summit, but I have said it already once before, and I will say so again, that our experience of their involvement on the previous occasion was a positive one. This is therefore the position of the country to hold the presidency.
With regard to enlargement, that will be the topic of debate in the last General Affairs Council to be held on 6 December. At this Council meeting I shall try to put together those elements concerning Turkey that at least will enable us to believe we can make progress. I have had on-going discussions on this matter with my colleagues. I am not quite sure whether we will yet be able to achieve unanimity on the subject at the General Affairs Council. Should there be sufficient unanimity to make a joint decision, the country to hold the presidency can still use the days it has left before the Helsinki Summit to put the finishing touches to the issue. Our common desire seems to be that the issue should be solved somehow through consensus before the Helsinki Summit and, as the representatives of the country to hold the presidency, we will work hard to achieve a positive solution.
I am grateful for all the comments made regarding the speed of enlargement, the Copenhagen criteria and everything else. Most of them reflected our opinion very closely when we were preparing the paperwork in the Council of Ministers. There were fewer remarks about foreign and security policy, but I would like to perhaps comment on one point. I have not mentioned the northern dimension issue at all this time. A meeting at ministerial level was held in Helsinki on the issue of the northern dimension, as we promised. Attendance was poor on the part of the foreign ministers of the other EU Member States – I was the only one there – but certain other ministers were present as well as all those ministers who are involved in the issue of the northern dimension. The response was very encouraging. The Commission promised to move things one step further and make an action plan, and thus we achieved what was perceived as the goal relating to the Portuguese presidential term. I agree with those who have spoken here that, if we increase stability, that, in its own way, increases security in Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples