Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.2.2-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Aznar, time – that tyrannical ruler - prevents me from dwelling on the positive aspects of your Presidency. There have been positive aspects, even in my group’s opinion, but my task is to focus in particular on a few matters which give us cause for concern.
As regards immigration and asylum, we were relieved to see that your proposal to link development aid – which is already appallingly low – to the Union’s aspirations of controlling illegal immigration did not receive support at Seville. In our opinion, in indulging the basest instincts of the far right, we would not be responding to the justified concerns of the citizens. We already have the bases of a coherent, comprehensive asylum and immigration policy – it is just that the Commission’s proposals have been lying stagnant for too long in the Council. We must follow the usual legislative procedures if we want to find a solution to this issue.
At the start of your Presidency, I expressed both my hope that that you would enjoy these six months and a criticism of the fact that your programme did not include a clear definition of your vision of Europe or of the role of the institutions. I can now observe that you appear to have enjoyed your term of office so much that you presented a vision of the Union in which not only would the governments remain in control of the Union but the Council Presidency would become an elected post and last for more than six months, thus competing directly with the Commission Presidency and upsetting the interinstitutional balance. We oppose this vision, Mr Aznar, for we feel it runs counter to the urgent need to make the Union more democratic and effective, and it is our fervent hope that the Convention will not follow it.
I would, moreover, like to echo Mr Watson’s words and express our concern and our opposition to the abolition of the Development Council, for this can only lead to development policy becoming even more subordinate to the geopolitical and trade policies of the European Union and, in particular, of its most powerful States. The dissolution of the Development Council could
presage the dismantling of the Development Directorate-General, and we would indeed request some reassurance from President Prodi that this is not the case.
I will say a few words on the Johannesburg Summit: we were extremely surprised not to find any reference in the conclusions to the disturbing failure of the Bali Summit or to the European Union initiatives to relaunch the sustainable development strategy. This strategy cannot be based solely on the liberalisation of trade, and still less, as even the Commission appears to be suggesting, on nuclear energy. If this is really the Union’s strategy for Johannesburg, it is my sincere opinion that Johannesburg will become Rio–10, not Rio+10.
Lastly, Mr Aznar, as environmentalists, we were quite sure that little would be achieved in these six months in the area of the environment, but it is fair to say that we can derive some pleasure from the fact that, thanks, not least, to a huge public campaign which we wholeheartedly supported, your efforts to use the Council Presidency to further the progress of the national hydrological plan, especially to obtain Union funding for it, and to reform fisheries policy along the lines desired by the Spanish Government have not met with success.
Finally, Mr Aznar, I too would like to know why Green Party representatives have been involved in problems on the borders with Portugal. I am really extremely curious to hear what you have to say on this matter."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples