Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021120.1.3-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, it is not so much a question of time, rather that I have an appointment with Mr Erdogan in Brussels, which, as things stand, seems appropriate, given that the winner of the Turkish elections is visiting Brussels. I am going to meet him this afternoon, and I feel this is important precisely because I believe that we need powerful, direct dialogue on these matters. Indeed, the issues on the table are the most far-reaching, most fundamental matters, and I therefore feel it is appropriate to analyse them in some depth, as I am going to do in Brussels this afternoon, as I said.
A further concern, expressed by Mrs Boudjenah, relates to the interpretation of peace and development issues overall, as a matter for general concern. I agree – as I said before – with this too. As regards matters such as the pluralism of the world and multilateralism, it is even more important that we adopt a role of absolute leadership because there is no one else who can keep these debates open, and we know how valuable they are at this time.
It must also be said, quite frankly, that these are debates which can be kept open in a credible manner if there is a financial commitment, and that is very difficult to fulfil at this time. I therefore believe that we genuinely ought to open an in-depth political debate on this because, clearly, if we do not engage sufficient resources, we will be merely moralising to these countries rather than capable of changing the situation in the world. I would stress: we have done a great deal and we have played an exemplary role. We must continue to do so but we must improve both the quality and quantity of our efforts.
This brings me to the last part of Mrs Poli Bortone’s speech, which concerned immigration. It is true that we need to focus on legal as well as illegal immigration, it is true that the issue of integrating immigrants is something that needs to be discussed, but, first and foremost, there is the major issue to be resolved of whether or not integration is taking place. I have to say, however, that, for the most part, the immigrants who come to Europe are increasingly stable, increasingly willing to become integrated into the societies of our European countries, wherever they come from, and they become integrated more easily and to a greater degree in some cases than in others. I do, in any case, believe that, for the sake of the future cohesion of our societies, we must make a huge effort to facilitate integration as a priority.
I would stress that it is an issue whose facets and characteristics vary greatly according to the country of origin and reception, but the risk of our societies becoming fragmented is a risk we cannot take.
It has been a very powerful personal experience for me to visit different communities of Italian immigrants in Germany and Belgium over the years. Wherever I have seen that total integration has taken place, I have realised that this was the only way for them to live happy, serene lives on an equal footing with their fellow citizens. Total integration is, in my opinion, a major objective for an open society, and it must take place in full respect for all cultures, in full respect for diversities, with a view to achieving societies which are not afflicted by conflict or tensions. Clearly, this means that we need an immigration policy which is much more complex and much more cohesive than that we have been working on hitherto.
Now, however, I want to respond to the first criticisms. I will then leave my colleagues from the Commission the task of developing the themes and exploring them in more detail. Indeed, there are a number of issues which are absolutely essential for our future action.
Mrs Grossetête mentioned our plans for the Mediterranean. I fully agree with her. I myself have on many occasions found myself in an awkward situation because of the way all the leaders of the Mediterranean countries criticise the Commission directly, accusing us of favouring Eastern Europe over them. My response has been simple: the demands of history have led us to take that road, but it is our intention, firstly, to strengthen the Barcelona policy, with whose development we are still encountering major problems, and secondly, to define the new policy which I have outlined – the ring of friends sharing everything except institutions with the Union – which, this is the point, I hope the Greek and Italian Presidencies will help to boost next year, given that we are going to have two consecutive Mediterranean presidencies in the same year. I have already discussed these matters and the Commission’s desire to fulfil its responsibilities in this area with the Greeks, and I will discuss them with the Italians subsequently too, for I feel that this is an extremely important issue. Moreover, I call upon Parliament as of now to strengthen our joint action in the field of the Mediterranean.
To return to the subject of our working methods, this is the age-old question of interinstitutional cooperation. It is a wide-ranging issue with major political implications, on which, however, there are a whole series of operational decisions to be taken, for we cannot limit ourselves to making declarations of principle. The Mediterranean policy will require us to take decisions affecting the budget and our whole way of working. I therefore feel that, as far as this matter is concerned, it is imperative that we focus primarily on interinstitutional programming.
Once again, Mrs Grossetête mentioned the need for each Commissioner to present a preliminary report to the Parliamentary committee concerned. I have no objection to this. Indeed, it could be useful, precisely because this is a new process which we need to improve. We will assess this proposal and I am sure we will take on board the sense of it. The only thing I want to avoid is the danger of fragmentation. There are a number of points at which, despite the need for in-depth analysis, we need to focus on the overall picture, specifically at the stage of the preliminary proposal at the beginning of the process and again when the final decision is taken at the end of the process. I would like these two stages to remain plenary debates. Clearly, there will be times during the debate when technical, specific points need to be discussed – we have no objection to that – but the beginning and end of the debate are a matter for all of us, not just some of us.
Mr Barón Crespo, first of all, the proposal on the Commission’s programme is usually determined by the relationship between the Commission and Parliament, which is extremely delicate. I would point out that the Commission’s programme for 2003 focuses on new initiatives whereas the Council’s programme, with very few exceptions, deals with initiatives which have already been presented by the Commission but which have not been adopted. In this sense, it is on our relationship with the Council that we need to focus, for we now have a backlog of issues which Parliament has already dealt with. Of course, the Commission fully supports the European Parliament – we have been consistent in our support – ensuring that the Council involves Parliament on all the points of its programme. Moreover, the Commission defines the political priorities for the Council, and it has already presented them to the General Affairs Council of 18 November. In this regard, we should have a close relationship with the Greek Presidency too.
As regards the point raised by Mr Barón Crespo concerning the political parties’ statute, we will present the new proposal as soon as it enters into force. We are in full agreement with you as regards its importance, but we are just waiting for the right moment to present the proposal, which must be discussed by everybody together.
As regards the interinstitutional resolutions for 2004, I feel that what Mr Barón Crespo said is extremely important, and I fully agree with him. The Commission has constantly drawn the presidency’s attention to the need to find solutions which will not upset the smooth functioning of the institutions. An agreement with Parliament is clearly necessary. When it became clear that there was a sort of legislative traffic jam, the Commission immediately made it clear that there needs to be coordination between Parliament’s rhythm of work and the rhythm of work of the Commission. We immediately stressed that the new Parliament must work in tandem with the new Commission right from the start. As I see it, these decisions are highly necessary, but we are short of time because solutions have to be found before Copenhagen. I think we could discuss this proposal at the interinstitutional summit at the end of November/beginning of December with a view precisely to achieving an agreement before Copenhagen. I must stress the vital importance of this matter because what we have to avoid is a scenario in which we have the new Parliament, a Commission that will only be in office for three months and then a new Commission, with all the organs changing and, as a result, a complete breakdown in some areas of the system. We are extremely concerned about this.
I fully share Mrs Frassoni’s concerns regarding sustainable development, about which Commissioner Wallström is going to speak later on. Commissioner Nielson is going to talk about Johannesburg and Vice-President de Palacio is going to talk about transport. I would point out that our position at Johannesburg was very strong but also very uncomfortable. I am not ashamed to say that the countries of the Developing World, the African countries particularly in this case – indeed, Africa is the real major problem – are tending to make less and less of a distinction between Europe, the United States and other countries. This is something which should concern us all. Despite the fact that, in recent years, we have been acting in a genuinely responsible manner – consider Kyoto, the Everything but Arms initiative, incisive decisions opening up our markets unilaterally, incisive decisions regarding the Kyoto Protocol, incisive decisions on many aspects of development aid, for example in Monterrey, where it was we who obtained the minimum that could be obtained as regards foreign aid, even though it really was an absolute minimum – we must not be surprised if the developing world reacts by lumping us all together without distinction. This is a matter of great concern which requires very thorough analysis on our part. This is the way we must approach the issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples