Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.7.2-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the main object of the initiative of the Republic of Finland which we have before us today is to reserve to the Council implementing powers with regard to certain detailed provisions and practical procedures for examining visa applications. The initiative of the Portuguese Republic in effect pursues the same object, namely to reserve implementing powers to the Council, but this time with regard to border checks and surveillance.
As regards the basic issue, I would call on Parliament to reject both initiatives because in my view they contain four serious political errors. The first is a political error against the Community spirit and against the spirit of the Treaty of Amsterdam. When it was decided that under the Treaty of Amsterdam the Schengen
would be transferred from the third to the first pillar, this was done in order to remove this matter from the intergovernmental framework and integrate it into the normal legal and institutional framework. By reserving itself implementing powers, the Council would, in effect, be rejecting the spirit of the Treaty of Amsterdam and, in practice, perpetuating the intergovernmental methods that used to apply.
The second mistake is, I believe, an institutional one. Let me remind Members that Article 202 of the EC Treaty is not just any old article. It forms part of the institutional provisions in the strict sense, which the Court of Justice considers should take precedence over other provisions. In reserving itself implementing powers, in considering that this constitutes a specific case – which, however, it has not supported by a detailed statement of grounds – the Council is in my view taking liberties with a fundamental provision of the Treaty establishing the European Community. That is something I find unacceptable.
The Council committed a third mistake, this time
the Commission. To justify reserving itself implementing powers, the Council maintains that visas and border control policy are a sensitive area. That argument does not stand up to analysis, especially when we remember that the regulation laying down a uniform format for visas expressly allows the Commission to take implementing measures, which are in fact secret, in what is clearly a particularly sensitive area. I would also be interested to know how much longer the Commission of the European Communities will stand by and watch the Council in effect dismantling its powers. Not only is the Council exercising the power of initiative that belongs to the Commission; on top of that it now wants to deprive the Commission of the implementing powers conferred on it by the Treaties.
The fourth error concerns Parliament directly. By reserving itself implementing powers – and I want every Member to realise this – the Council is completely depriving the European Parliament of the information to which it would have been entitled under the usual comitology arrangements. This refusal to provide information is all the more serious because some decisions already are and will continue to be taken in the framework of procedures classified as confidential. For example, by virtue of what is known as the prior consultation procedure, certain third-country nationals who wanted to enter an EU country, a Schengen country, would not be able to do so because a country, whose identity we would never know and which would not necessarily be the country of destination, had vetoed that person, for reasons we would never know and that would never have to be justified.
I certainly do not want to create confusion by suggesting that we must have a right to scrutinise individual decisions on each visa application, but I cannot accept the fact that on such fundamental matters, which affect the citizens' basic freedoms, the Council will never be accountable to anyone either for its priorities or for its selection criteria. That is not just a democratic deficit, it is a real denial of democracy. That is why I call on Parliament to follow the unanimous example of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and quite simply to reject outright the initiatives of the Republic of Finland and the Republic of Portugal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples