Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-212"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.7.3-212"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr Casaca, I can assure you that despite everything I am not pessimistic about the way in which the European Union has been progressing towards establishing an ethical dimension, and in particular towards equipping itself with legal mechanisms to enable it to cope with new situations such as the ones you have mentioned. When it comes to the development of the Treaty of Amsterdam, I think it is important for us to bear in mind that transfers of power have taken place, and that further transfers of power remain to be made over the next five years from what was the old third pillar to the first pillar of the Union, particularly as regards visas, judicial cooperation in civil matters and customs cooperation. We still have judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the third pillar, but at the moment we are working towards establishing a European area of freedom, security and justice, and we hope that the Commission can respond to this by presenting a scoreboard giving us a catalogue of pertinent measures.
On the other hand, I would like to stress that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights that is being discussed will very probably help to strengthen these new aspects and will certainly help to give the European Union a more solid body of legally arguable principles, which some of us, and the Council in particular, would like to see.
As for your question about Austria, I would like to repeat what I said about Austria’s compliance with Articles 6 and 7 up to now. It was good to hear you talking about an “ad hoc decision” as it is clear that this was an ad hoc decision, and one taken by the 14 Member States regarding their relations with the Austrian Government. What was at issue was not the Austrian Government’s conduct, but its political make-up. During an earlier debate I said that we are now all Austrians within the European Union, and I would like to repeat that.
We are all Austrians because the European Union is a single entity in terms of rights and citizenship, and I would like to have the same rights in Austria that Austrian citizens should have in my country. So I do not like to be taught any lessons by a party which behaves in a racist and xenophobic way, and makes racist and xenophobic statements which it seems to me give us every reason to be concerned. These concerns are at present being expressed in a bilateral political framework rather than at European Union level, because there would only be scope for a decision at European Union level if there were an infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which means that, for the future, Mr Rübig, we will have to assess to what extent the Austrian Freedom Party can make a break with its past ideology, because that is crucial. It is important for the Freedom Party to clarify if it is still adhering to the principles described in its previous statements, and in particular the kinds of individuals through which those statements were made, because otherwise I cannot see any other solution except for the other Member States to continue to have the same kinds of reservations about their relations with the Austrian Government, with all the consequences that flow from that. And, as I said, this would be a purely bilateral matter. The Austrians have every right to whatever government they want – but we have every right to our opinions about the Austrian Government."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples