Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.2.2-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome this debate on the Commission work programme for 2001, even though we feel that it is overdue; because of Nice, there was perhaps no alternative but to hold this debate now, in February 2001. But we trust that, in coming years, this debate will be held in the autumn of each year preceding the year to which the programme being debated relates, as agreed.
We want Stockholm, then Gothenburg, and finally Laeken under the Belgian Presidency to send out signals in this direction, so that this sort of conference can start work in 2002. This conference should form the cornerstone of broad public debate in Europe, which should be given a structured start at this sort of conference.
My second comment concerns asylum and immigration policy. Mr President of the Commission, we call on the Commission to make a common asylum and immigration policy a focal point, because national policies are obviously not getting us anywhere. Only a common policy can resolve these difficult issues. The Head of State of an important country – I refer to the chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany – said that, if we agree on an asylum and immigration policy in principle, we will be able to switch over quickly to qualified majority voting. I call on the Commission to push ahead, so that, once we have reached agreement in principle, we can switch to qualified majority voting on asylum and immigration policy as quickly as possible.
But we also call on the Commission to take account of the consequences in its initiatives. We get the impression, for example when it comes to reuniting families, that your concept of the family is somewhat ill defined. We call on you to restrict reunification to the core family, otherwise the repercussions will get out of hand. Asylum and immigration policy as a whole must be a priority.
My third comment concerns Europe as a financial centre. As you all know, we shall have a common European currency in our pockets as of 1 January 2002. This historic event – as the President of the Commission rightly pointed out – will change Europe. But we must also improve Europe's competitiveness by enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to invest, because that is where the jobs are created. I think we need to step up our efforts here.
As far as the enlargement of the European Union is concerned, we are committed to welcoming the first wave of members to the European Union by 2004. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to conduct a public information campaign, so that we can convince our voters back home that the European Union needs to enlarge and that it is in the historic interest of Europe to do so.
My last comment is this: we want a strong, democratic Europe which has the ability to act. Mr President of the Commission, let us work on that together. We shall support you in strengthening the Community institutions. We call on the Council not to be stand-offish and to make its contribution to Europe as our project for the future. If we work together, it will succeed. But the Council needs to play its part, now that the Commission and Parliament have moved ahead.
I must, however, address a few words of severe criticism to the Council: ladies and gentlemen, I think it is scandalous for the Council of Ministers and the presidency not to be represented here during the Commission's presentation of its programme of work. It is absolutely unacceptable.
But it shows where the shortcomings lie. The Foreign Ministers are off trotting the globe, which I have nothing against, after all it is their job; but, at the same time, they are also responsible for European affairs. Clearly, European policy is no longer foreign policy and making Foreign Ministers responsible for European policy – and their absence is proof of this – is no longer in keeping with the times and we need to change these arrangements. We need people in government dealing solely with Europe.
Which is why I call for a Council of Ministers for Europe who will always be free to attend Parliament. It takes more to shape Europe than a few high-flying speeches by Foreign Ministers; it means working day in day out on Europe as our project for the future. Which is why we want structural changes in the Council of Ministers.
We were delighted to hear that the President of France, Jacques Chirac, has followed Commission President Prodi in calling for a public debate on the post-Nice process. We want a broad, public debate on the future of our continent and, Mr President of the Commission, we as a group – I cannot speak for the whole of Parliament – are on your side, we are your allies, when it comes to the future of Europe. We want to strengthen you as a Community institution, because the Council appears at present to be unable to muster up the strength to act as a Community institution and representative of the common interest.
You referred to the European Parliament's involvement in this process. We should like to be more specific. Our family of parties, the European People's Party, passed a resolution at its congress in January of this year recommending a reform conference modelled on the convention, i.e. involving the European Parliament, the national parliaments, the government, the Commission and the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples