Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-27-Speech-3-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041027.3.3-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin by emphasising strongly how pleased I am to be here in your midst, particularly against the background of questions asked in the course of the very important debate on the Commission that I attended yesterday. One of these specifically related to the reason for my absence. It is simple: it was my duty to escort the Queen of the Netherlands here and to be present for her speech. The main thing, however, is that you can be assured that we are following everything that is said here about the extremely important issue of Parliament’s decision on the new Commission particularly closely. The Presidency is keeping in close contact with all the parties concerned and is not missing a word: you can be assured of that. All the same, the Presidency is not involved in this important discussion between Parliament and the new Commission President. However involved we feel in this, fully fledged democracy determines that Parliament enters into discussion with the new Commission President. I should like to emphasise here that no one, including the Presidency, would deny you as a Parliament any right to take decisions at your own discretion. That, too, is compatible with the fully fledged democracy that is Europe. That right is yours and I take it for granted that you as a Parliament will presently take a prudent, considered decision.
I should then like to express my thanks for the words of encouragement that many of you have given to the Presidency and regarding the coming European Council, and for your endorsement in many cases of the issues and the way in which they are discussed. Of course, your opinions may subsequently differ on the subject matter, and that is just the way it should be. In fact, the only general criticism I have heard regarding the role of the Presidency has come from Dutch Member Mr van den Berg from the Socialists Group in the European Parliament, but other than that I feel encouraged, on the whole, in the path we are taking as a Presidency.
As regards the coming European Council, many of you have called for attention to the Lisbon Strategy. I should therefore like to formally draw attention to the fact that, as you know, the Spring European Council is the crucial European Council – the one at which decisions on the whole Lisbon Strategy are to be taken – and that the activities of this November’s European Council should be seen as a preparation for this Spring European Council, to be led by the Luxemburg Presidency. Nevertheless, a great deal is at stake, and I very much agree with everyone – Mr Verheugen was the first to emphasise this – that it is extremely important to give a renewed impetus to this Lisbon Strategy, and therefore to the development of the most competitive possible knowledge-based economy in the world. I also very much agree with the many people, such as Mr Eurlings and Mr Jonathan Evans, who have called for action rather than words; for theory to be translated into tangible actions. I also very much agree with the many people who advocated looking to national governments and trying not to pass the buck to Brussels. Let us be aware, however, that the Lisbon agenda is primarily the responsibility of national governments and that they must put their money where their mouth is. Mrs Thyssen was one of the first to underline this, but Mr Watson, Mr Eurlings and others also emphasised that it is important to have the courage to implement structural reforms at national level. Indeed, this is the very topic for discussion at the informal dinner with the Heads of State or Government. The implementation of such badly needed reforms will involve an exchange of national experiences. Some have pointed out that the balance in the Lisbon Strategy, as presented here by the Presidency, and as planned for discussion in the European Council, is not correct, paying too little attention to the components other than economic growth itself, namely the social and environmental components. I can assure those who drew attention to this, such as Mr van den Berg and Mrs Frassoni, and others that we shall maintain that balance. Of course, the Council will have its say and will have to draw its own conclusions but, in Council, the Presidency will explicitly hold on to the three pillars that the Lisbon Strategy had and must continue to have.
I do not at all agree, therefore – this was another of Mr van den Berg’s more cutting remarks – that this is a conservative approach and scheme. On the contrary, I think that we should actually be progressive in the way we promote economic growth in conjunction with the two other pillars. Indeed, it is good that the former Labour Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr Kok, is chairing the task force for the mid-term review and is to present his report. I really do hope that the Council can use that as a good starting point for further discussion.
A number of you rightly and understandably mentioned the other important item that is on the agenda more with a view to decision making, in a sense, at the coming European Council: justice and home affairs. Many have rightly said in this regard that we must not lose energy following the horrific attack in Madrid. We must use this energy to really take steps towards the interchange of data and towards greater police and judicial cooperation. Mr Eurlings and Mr Bourlanges and many others rightly made this remark. That is exactly what we are doing. This process is under way, as you know, and I am decidedly positive about the steps that are now being taken. We shall be discussing these. We shall also be discussing them in December, because then we shall have the actual report by the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator at our disposal, and shall bring this up for discussion in the European Council. It has also been rightly pointed out that, in the face of the great need to produce closer cooperation and come up with more extreme possibilities and measures in the fight against terrorism, we must not lose sight of the essential fundamental human rights and freedoms. Mr Watson and others made this observation. This important issue will certainly come up for discussion in this way at this and the December European Councils. Some – Mrs Frassoni and Mr Catania – asked more specifically about the ideas on asylum and migration policy. Camps have been mentioned, although we do not call them that, but rather speak of reception capacities in the region. Cooperation is needed with the third countries from which the asylum seekers originate. The Presidency proposes tackling the problems at source by means of enhanced cooperation with third countries, and hopes that this approach can be confirmed and decided at the European Council. This means that we must show real commitment on our part, but can also expect something from these third countries as regards migration and asylum. Many, including Mr Eurlings and Mr Bourlanges and Mrs Rühle, have rightly and very importantly referred to the question of principle that is the desired transition to qualified majority voting and codecision in this whole field of asylum and migration. I perfectly understand the desire on the part of everyone that has talked about this to see the changeover in this field. I cannot deny that it is a difficult discussion. You know that the Presidency shares the views expressed by a number of you here, namely that we should indeed take that path as far as possible. At all events, the Presidency is making a supreme effort towards this, and so I hope that we can achieve a sufficiently positive decision in this direction.
A number of you have drawn attention to a third item that also features on the agenda of the coming European Council, which concerns the problem of ‘communicating Europe’: that is to say, promoting greater involvement of citizens in Europe, in what you do here, in what the Council does, in what the Commission does, in what we do in Brussels. Various remarks have been made about this, but in all cases there was agreement that this subject requires a better, more vigorous approach, because we cannot carry on like this: distributing pamphlets and then keeping our fingers crossed that citizens finally understand the merit and importance of the work that we are all doing here. In that sense, I also agree with Mr Piotrowski, for example, who says that we should not just give one side of the story, but also include the aspects of criticism and scepticism. Indeed, let us not fear criticism, let us not fear debates in which negative judgments are expressed, nor let us fear clashes between various institutions such as Parliament and Commission as regards the maturity of the democracy and the encouragement of debate, because debate will ultimately be the most important means to enhance citizens’ involvement in Europe. When they see that important things are decided here on which opinions can differ and on which citizens also have an opinion, they will become involved in Europe, and then – and I also address this to Mr Battilocchio – Europe will be less remote than many people currently find it. In practical terms, Mrs Sbarbati, yes, it will cost money. Commission, Council, national governments will need to have something set aside in order to attend to this. If I may mention one thing: the Dutch Presidency has promoted the showing of a television broadcast on the eve of the December European Council that will confront people in a broadly accessible manner and hold them to account on subjects discussed there, and the Dutch Presidency is putting money into that, too.
Finally, I should like to mention other topics that have been raised, such as enlargement, to which Mr Verheugen has already referred. No discussion of the substance of this is planned for this European Council, because this is scheduled for the December European Council. There will of course be a presentation, and we are all familiar with the important and very valuable Commission report on this. I wish to hereby add my voice to the compliments paid to the Commission, particularly Mr Verheugen, by Mrs De Keyser and others regarding the value of the report we now have before us. I also concur with the remarks that she and others made about Turkey, namely that we must focus on the various aspects, on the opportunities and positive sides. Nevertheless, I also think that it was a very wise observation of Mr Verheugen’s that even the concerns that exist are shared by us, and these are also being included, have been included, in the proposals the Commission has presented, which also mention the possible results.
By way of conclusion, Mrs Frassoni put a specific question regarding the Turkish part of Cyprus and what the Council intends to do about it. This is not on the agenda of the European Council, but I can tell you, and tell her via you, that her remark that the European Union cannot leave the Turkish part of Cyprus out in the cold is the exact essence of the guiding principle the Presidency has been following since the negative outcome of the referendum. This is also why, as you know, we are working hard with others to make as much progress as possible with direct aid and direct trade during our Presidency. At all events, we aim to continue working in that direction.
I hope that I have covered the key issues and responded to the issues that Parliament has raised. Mr President, I hope that I may be excused after this speech. On this occasion, too, we shall keep track of every word the Commission says; I do not believe that this has to be in person. If you will permit me to take my leave now, I shall gladly do so. Otherwise, I shall of course remain here at your request."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples