Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.6.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have nothing further to say to the Council. The previous speaker has quoted me from the last committee meeting and said it all! Why does the Council find it so hard to work with us in creating an area of freedom, security and justice? I find this question more and more worrying. Allow me to try and elucidate it a little from my point of view.
The establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice hovers at the interface between the constituent elements of national sovereignty. The police and judicial policy are quite clearly elements of sovereignty, in other words sensitive political areas in the Member States, and shifting the interface of these and communitising these policies, i.e. delegating powers from the national capitals, from Lisbon, Berlin or Paris, to Brussels represents a transfer of power.
Of course it is very, very difficult to break away from the executive forms which have been handed down to us, even if we recognise that police cooperation is necessary; we can only fight international crime at European level. So we have to draw our conclusions and say that we need legal and organisational communitisation of the instruments available. As a result, the governments which need to do this and which recognise that need, also realise that, in implementing this, they are taking away their own powers. Then there is the European Parliament, which is also complicated.
In the final analysis, however, we must find a way forward, because if we carry on as we have in the past, and with last year’s experience, then what will happen is that the security debate and the debate about citizens’ rights will be marginalised in the national parliaments as a result of making it a half national, half European structure. It has not quite taken off in the European Parliament and the Council meets behind closed doors.
If the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice is kept secret, then we shall not win the citizens over to it. In other words, the stability of democracy is at stake if we discuss it. This is why I frequently get so worked up, but not over the Council of Ministers. Generally, they too are elected Members of Parliament: Mr Gomes, Mr Costa, Commissioner Vitorino, in principle we are all in the same boat. However, I should like to make an appeal to the Council apparatchiks. The following principle applies: He who prepares decisions, in this case the Council apparatchiks, anticipates the decisions, which is why the Council apparatchiks should demonstrate more democratic spirit.
I should just like to mention another aspect briefly because I do not have much time.
sounds like skateboard in German. I say therefore that we need a timetable which stipulates what must be implemented, when and by whom. This Vitorino plan is what we need: clear, precise projects with a clear, defined timetable. Mr Vitorino, whom I would like to thank for his speech, can give us that, provided that he has the necessary financial and human resources. Let us give him those resources, then he can get on with his job and we all stand to gain."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Scoreboard"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples