Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-13-Speech-3-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041013.6.3-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you, Mr President. In response to your last remark, let me say that I did my level best to do this and ascertained beforehand how much time was needed, and was given that amount of time, as a result of which I was able to plan my other engagements accordingly. I am truly sorry that the time factor prevented things from going as planned, but it is too late to make amends now. So I need to go. The Dutch Presidency will in any event still be represented.
Although this is not my last meeting with Mr Vitorino, I think it is appropriate to take this opportunity of thanking him warmly, also on behalf of the Council, for the cooperation between the Council and Commission in this whole issue. Thanks to his commitment, the European Union managed to make much progress. It was not least thanks to his personal charm that it was possible for the Council to reach compromises, and his insight has led to innovative solutions. I am indeed of the opinion that he was a sound Commissioner for the Union.
The area of freedom, security and justice, which we are in the process of building, has been the subject of all kinds of comments from various quarters. It was described as a step towards a federal Europe that would prejudice freedom and democracy, because the latter is established from the bottom up.
I myself come from a country where democracy was invented some time in the Middle Ages and took an awfully long time to prevail. One condition for democracy is that our communities can live in safety, which is what we are trying to achieve here. After all, cooperation among the countries of Europe implies that an alternative is found to guarantee that our citizens can exercise their rights in freedom and can live in safety. This freedom and safety are under threat, not primarily by governments, but mainly by those who are our fellow citizens. In a well-organised society, governments are the first guarantee for citizens’ freedoms and rights. Needless to say, these governments will need to be monitored and their powers will need to be curtailed, but the absence of an authority is generally the best guarantee for chaos in which the citizens’ rights are the first to be sacrificed. If, however, government action is based on fear, the rights are often also the first to suffer. It is becoming evident, however, that it is increasingly difficult for individual countries to deliver on those guarantees, so we are obliged to pool resources, provided that diversity and tradition in this regard are respected. As already stated, the most important freedoms that are liable to be pushed aside are the freedoms that are sacrificed in the face of crimes against the life of our fellow human beings.
The subject of terrorism has been mentioned in this connection. I have already stated in this respect that this is an important item at present, but that we should not make the mistake of using fear of terrorism as a basis on which to cooperate in this area within Europe. We must build on the added value of cooperation, on the actual interests and needs of society. It goes without saying that, in the short term, no effort should be spared in combating terrorism. Following the attacks in Madrid, the Council drafted a long list with the necessary measures. At a given time, the Council showed determination, albeit in another capacity, and adopted a directive and various measures in the area of safeguarding personal privacy. Those rules apply and are also enforced within the Union. In addition, there is cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs on the one hand and wider cooperation within the Union, on the other. Those two should not be kept separate in a schizophrenic fashion which would mean that in the area of justice and home affairs, everything should be duplicated in respect of what has already been achieved in the European Union.
I would now like to address a number of remarks that have been made here about the development and future of asylum and immigration policy. That is undoubtedly a key item and your Commission representatives who were present know that the presidency intends to make good progress on this score too in the coming months. Initially, this will inevitably involve striking a compromise and finding a basis that some will, at first sight, regard as a lowest common denominator. Taking that as a basis will, in fact, enable us to make progress at a later date by going into the detail of the matter. I have already indicated, and admit wholeheartedly, that the Dutch Presidency intends to put decision-making by qualified majority in place, precisely to make this possible. This can only be done, though, if the initial basis has been laid by unanimity and that we can continue to build on that basis.
Various things have been said in this House, about such things as what has allegedly been decided during the informal Council on reception centres in North Africa. Let me point out that our first responsibility and first priority are dictated by the fact that even now, people are still drowning in the Mediterranean on a daily basis in their attempts to reach Europe. Europe has regulated legal migration, but has failed to regulate illegal migration, which is what is at issue here. As has also been discussed during the informal Council, it is up to the Member States to find an answer to the question as to how we can solve this matter. In this connection, during the Justice and Home Affairs Council, talks were held with the High Commissioner for refugees, Mr Lubbers, but Commissioner Vitorino also gave his view on the external dimension of asylum and migration policy. The concern to find an effective and suitable solution to the issue in the Mediterranean was evident in these three speakers. This was also recognised by the ministers present. At the same time, it became clear that existing initiatives can be used as a basis for many things. Statements have been made here about the Italian State, and the presidency has in any case asked Italy about its approach to the issue and what action is taken in the case of people submitting asylum applications. The presidency has received the guarantee from the Italian Government that those people are admitted to the national asylum procedure and that the High Commissioner is involved in dealing with this. It is the case, however, that if no asylum application is submitted, people can be returned to the country of origin, or at least of transit. If people are picked up on the high seas, they can be taken back to the country of transit. It is then our responsibility to ensure that reception is possible in those countries of transit, which can also be done under the remit of the High Commissioner for refugees. This is not by definition an issue for the nation states. There was also the question about the directive for minimum standards with regard to the asylum procedure. The Dutch presidency aims to complete the decision-making process before the end of its term.
I would like to make a few separate observations, particularly with regard to Mr Bourlanges’ initial remarks further to my comment about the Court of Justice. It is not the case that by extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in a field where absolutely no judges operate, judges will only now act. Immigration law and criminal law are fields in which there has been quite extensive legal protection in all the Member States from the earliest times. In this respect, the key function of the Court is therefore the uniform interpretation of provisions. I have noted that if the Union uses decisions to step on the areas of immigration and criminal law, this will necessitate a uniform interpretation. It is then the Union’s prime responsibility to ensure that the interpretation of those provisions in the procedures in which the freedom of people is at stake, is done promptly. If not, it will be true, as the saying goes, that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. That is the Union’s first responsibility and that is the reason why I have highlighted this.
As for your remarks about decision-making by qualified majority, I have already indicated the presidency’s minimum ambitions on this score. In this connection, we will need to await the further course of events. With regard to your remark about the Human Rights Agency, I should like to say the following. As you know, the European Council took a decision on this in September, and the Dutch Presidency will ensure at the earliest opportunity that …"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples