Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.1.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your comments and thoughts. Your many, very many positive criticisms fill all of us who participated in the Greek Presidency with great joy.
I believe that Mr Solana's proposal has much to commend it. It does not generalise, it concerns specific issues and correctly identifies the dangers. And these dangers arise from weapons of mass destruction, because modern technology allows weapons of mass destruction to be manufactured without the technical means needed in the past. Therefore, such weapons can also be made in other countries and prevention is needed. Prevention does not necessarily mean that the means for military intervention must exist. Prevention for immigration was also what was said, financing for other countries. Prevention of terrorism is monitoring these developments, controlling trade, signing agreements governing the provision of information. We need prevention. We need a policy for this, so that we can stay ahead of such situations. Mr Solana has made a proposal, a step, and I believe that we need to continue it, because Greece is convinced from the visits it made, that we need a common defence and security policy.
Mr Papayannakis said that there is continuity on major problems. Of course there is continuity and it has never been maintained that the Greek Presidency resolved all the Union's problems. That would be ridiculous. In the Balkans, for example, to which one honourable Member referred, both the next Presidency and Greece, now in the capacity of
a Member State of the European Union, will need to follow up the solutions found. But, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that, if there is to be a follow-up, we need to talk creatively. And I think that the Greek Presidency, as you have confirmed in your comments, gave a creative direction to the approach to the problems.
Why, what did we want to do? I should like to close by repeating our aspiration. We wanted to create a stronger Europe and we followed up the Lisbon policies so that there would, for example, be a stronger Europe in the social and economic sector. We wanted the cohesion of Europe, hence our policy on Iraq. We wanted prospects for Europe, which is why we worked for the Constitution and the security policy. We wanted to make Europe a world power, hence our policy for the Middle East, our policy with Russia, the USA, Japan and Canada.
I believe that we progressed and we progressed thanks to cooperation with you. We progressed thanks to the great help of the European Commission, which submitted a series of proposals, thanks to the contribution made by Mr Prodi, and we also progressed, I believe, because something particularly positive happened during these six months: all the European countries realised that we need to progress. We need to create. We cannot stay put. As long as we stay put, there is an increasing risk of our losing what we already have. In order to keep it and to gain even more, we need to progress.
Of the comments expressed, I shall pick out two or three issues. The first core issue to which you referred was the issue of the new Constitutional Treaty and the Convention. Ladies and gentlemen, as President-in-Office of the European Union, I visited the 24 Member States for the first time in order to prepare the summit in Halkidiki and to help so that the Constitutional Convention could finish its work. I thought I knew Europe well. However, I found that there are significant differences, not only social and political differences, of course, which were visible and known, but also as regards the perception of the issues of the European Union, the progress of Europe and European cooperation. There were countries which have a completely different perception of the Presidency from the perception all of you have and from what is happening or has happened in past years. I do not believe that we can find a solution to European issues unless we take account of these differences and try to find compromises.
The new Member States in central Europe are living with the past, a past of repression by the Soviet Union. They are living with the fear of similar developments, they want to pay great attention to relations between the European Union and Russia, they set particular store by security issues, cooperation and participation in ΝΑΤΟ. We also know that the old countries in the European Union now have a different perspective, because they have seen that the European Union has overcome these problems. Therefore, compromises are needed on all issues. And a number of steps – either big or small – need to be taken. Besides, we cannot achieve the objectives we would like right from the start, the objectives, for example, of a Union which operates to a federal standard, with advanced central policies, a Union which has a uniform foreign policy without difficulties on all the issues etc.
On the basis of these conclusions, I want to repeat that the compromise contained in the Convention's text is a good compromise. A good compromise, a good basis for further discussions, which will take place at the Intergovernmental Conference. The issues of the Intergovernmental Conference will be resolved by the Italian Presidency, which will convene it, as agreed in Halkidiki, during October. That is also where the answers will be given about the participation of the European Parliament and the working method.
That brings me to the question of what the technical issues mean in relation to the third chapter of the Constitutional Treaty. As we remember, the European Council decided that the work of the Convention should be completed by June and it insisted on this, as did the summit in March and the extraordinary informal summit held in Athens for that reason. We therefore said in Halkidiki that, as there is this decision, the Convention should not continue its work by changing this text or this compromise which was presented. Mr Giscard d'Estaing said that the third chapter needs to be brought into line with the two previous chapters, that the method of expression or form of the third chapter are a method of expression and a form that need correction, which is why it was decided to extend the Convention, so that the work could continue within the framework of what had been agreed, on the basis of what had been agreed, and the third chapter could be brought into line with the previous chapters. Having said which, the Convention will, of course, have to decide what this harmonisation work will be, but the Council was clear that it does not want to reverse this arrangement or the compromise reached. So I think that good work was done and the Intergovernmental Conference will be able to finish according to the timetable.
That brings me to the second issue raised, the issue of immigration. There is misinformation here. I was asked whether or not the single border guard had been decided or discussed. Of course it was discussed. The three Scandinavian countries and numerous countries of central Europe stated that, for constitutional reasons, they would not agree under any circumstances to this sort of guard and that this sort of guard is not possible. Consequently, because the objective is not for there to be a guard, but for there to be common action and coordination, we emphasised in particular in the decision taken in Halkidiki the need for common action and coordination, and various proposals are contained in the Commission text, which is also the basis for the decision on how this coordination will be achieved.
As far as the distribution of the burden between the Member States is concerned, it exists. However, there is an erroneous perception, that decisions will be taken so that, for example, Germany will give Italy money to deal with immigration. That is not what it is about. It was decided that there would be common programmes, of the Union as a whole which, because they were applied in the Mediterranean, for example, or on the Union's eastern borders, would benefit a number of countries. This is the distribution of burdens. The common programmes help those countries or the areas in which there is a problem, or those countries which have some special need to address the overall problem.
Similarly, as far as readmission agreements are concerned, I would like to point out, because it was said that Turkey has a readmission agreement with the Union, that it has no readmission agreement with the Union, which is why we said that the Union needs to conclude readmission agreements. We therefore decided that there should be a series of criteria for the application of these agreements, because a country cannot cooperate with the Union and refuse to accept the return of immigrants. I agree with all those who pointed out that this policy must also continue under the Italian Presidency, because we have taken a step, I believe an important step, but more needs to be done both on asylum and on immigration to complete that step.
The third issue which I wish to mention concerns the issue relating to Mr Solana's proposal. Mr Wurtz commented that this proposal by Mr Solana needs to be debated and we agree entirely. Mr Solana has undertaken to process his proposal by December and, of course, afterwards, as with Economic and Monetary Union, so too with security policy, whatever form it takes, and defence policy, we need a broad debate here in Parliament and in the Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples