Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-17-Speech-3-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041117.3.3-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should first and foremost like to thank your Members of Parliament warmly for their contribution. You have dealt with issues that affect the European citizen directly at great length. I have also noticed that there has been support from many quarters for the keystones discussed by the Council, namely more cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, working on safety in Europe, working on more balanced economic growth, the Lisbon strategy, and promoting public involvement.
Mr Blokland claimed that Mr Kok put the ball back in the court of the Member States, and went on to enquire after the Dutch Presidency’s agenda for the near future. I should like to draw your attention to three things in this respect.
First of all, we have analysed the remarks, suggestions and opinions of the Heads of Government during the informal working lunch.
Secondly, we will be consulting the Luxembourg Presidency about future conclusions and needless to say, we will be in contact with the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, provided he and his team receive your consent.
I have also noticed that you demand concrete action. What is needed is not only declarations, but also that we simply examine what the matter in hand is and deal with it. In that framework, the suggestion made by Mr Eurlings is interesting. He states that different Member States boast innovation platforms and that those should, where possible, join forces. Mrs van den Burg was right to draw the attention to cooperation between the European Parliament and the national parliaments. Mrs in 't Veld also re-emphasised the need for action. We will convey this message to the Luxembourg Presidency. It is useful to remind ourselves that liberalisation, the very element we need in order to strengthen market forces, does not have to be at odds with the European social model. Mrs Oomen-Ruijten was right to point out that the actions must be concrete and that national responsibilities must, in fact, be taken. It is also for that reason that I, as President of the European Council, have opted for a different working formula, namely for a very in-depth dialogue during the working lunch to exchange experiences with regard to the reform policy in the different European Member States. I think that that was a sound formula. I also think that Mrs Oomen-Ruijten was right to talk about the need for better regulations and an easing in the rules with a view to strengthening the entrepreneurial climate in Europe and economic growth. I agree with you that there, too, the European Parliament can play an important role.
Finally, Mrs Staniszewska mentioned the Lisbon objectives in relation to the financial perspectives. These objectives will obviously be given a prominent place in the new financial perspectives and needless to say, we have yet to agree on the level of those amounts.
I will now turn to the third item, that of communication. People from different political persuasions have pointed at the need for good communication. Mr Eurlings was right to point out that a prompt solution must be found to the problem of the statute, and that of your provision of income, because continuous discussion of this subject does not create a good impression. Mr Nicolaï, my European Affairs Minister will also commit to this matter for that reason. Certain Members have raised the subject of language, and we had the pleasure of hearing Welsh and Irish. I have understood your message. The Constitution was also mentioned. In this context, the idea of a referendum week was mooted. It so happens that referendums deal with different situations in the Member States. Legislation is not the same everywhere. There are a number of practical and legal objections to having the referendums in the space of one week. Mr Nicolaï discussed this with your Committee on Constitutional Affairs yesterday, and this produced three elements.
First of all, it is recognised that this primarily concerns national matters. Secondly, the European character can be emphasised by, for example, joint and simultaneous action, which also accommodates what you stated here before. We will also be working on subtle coordination by, for example, ensuring that consultation between the European Affairs Ministers is good in terms of planning campaigns, and suchlike.
Mr Knapman raised the possible issues that could arise when the referendums and decisions made at Member State level have a negative outcome. You know what the deal is. It has been agreed in the European Council that, if ratification has been completed by 4/5 of the number of Member States and if a few Member States were to have issues at that point, the situation will be discussed. A treaty cannot be signed and ratified if not all countries sign. However, I urge you to do what we can in order to have a positive outcome and in order to receive support for the Constitutional Treaty. In all honesty, I have high hopes and high expectations. Let there be no mistake, though, it does require excellent communication.
Finally, also in the framework of communication, Professor Grabowska mentioned a youth pact. She supported us in this and I am pleased with what she had to say.
Finally, different remarks have been made about external relations, foreign policy and the concern that exists about various developments in the world. This brings me to the remarks made by Mr Catania, Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mrs Napoletano concerning the situation in Iraq. We cannot turn a blind eye to the events in Iraq. Obviously, international legal rules will need to be adhered to. We assume that the US authorities will be mounting an in-depth investigation straight away further to the images we saw yesterday and will take measures in order to prevent similar events in future. I would also like to express my abhorrence in respect of the persistent attacks and hostage takings in Iraq, the recent low being the killing of aid worker Margaret Hassan. We sympathise with the relatives of the victims of the atrocious violence in Iraq. At the same time, we must all contribute to stability in Iraq. The conference to be held in Sharm El Sheikh next Tuesday offers the neighbouring countries and major international actors a good opportunity to send a joint message to Iraq and the Iraqi people. I hope and trust that this will be a clear message in support of the Iraqi interim government, together with democracy, freedom, security and justice in Iraq.
Let me start with the Hague Programme. Mr Schulz was right to draw attention to Commissioner Vitorino’s important role, because the excellent result has been achieved partly thanks to his input and influence. I think that now is an appropriate time to thank Mr Vitorino for this. Mr Mayor Oreja was right to talk about the importance of priorities being set in the programme for freedom and security. For example, these priorities are in place for the first item, being asylum and immigration. We are working on better decision-making. Qualified Majority Voting is being introduced and an asylum procedure will enter into effect in 2010. With regard to terrorism, we need to take decisive action to fight it and that is exactly why, as Mrs in ‘t Veld already stated, cooperation between police, justice and intelligence services needs to be stepped up. Terrorism will also be discussed in more detail at the meeting of the European Council in December. For the rest, I would draw your attention to the action plan to be compiled by the European Commission.
Mrs De Keyser expressed concerns about the Middle East. I should like to emphasise that the Union will pull out all the stops to ensure that the Palestinian elections are a success. That was also the reason for the short-term programme that we in the European Council have approved. Mr Bot and the High Representative, Mr Solana, are in consultation with Arab countries and with the members of the quartet of the party involved. We in the Presidency are also working in close consultation with Javier Solana on a package of direct measures to support the Palestinians, particularly in the run-up to the presidential elections.
Let me finally turn to Mrs Staniszewska’s observation about Ukraine. There is no doubt that the Union is offering Ukraine a prospect for the future, and it is not for nothing that we developed an action plan, with and for Ukraine, in the framework of the European neighbourhood programme. Hopefully, this will be laid down formally in December, which will give us a fresh basis for future cooperation. In this respect, we will not be considering who will win the elections, but the way in which those elections are being held. Only by fair and free elections can the Ukrainian Government demonstrate that it observes European standards not only in words, but also in deeds. This brings me to the end of my speech. On behalf of the Presidency, I should like to thank the Members of this House for their in-depth and interesting contributions. You have sent out signals that are important for future international policy-making. Europe means a great deal to the public. Communication will be tremendously enhanced when Europe contributes to employment, to a prospect for the future for the economy, when Europe helps reinforce security and if Europe succeeds in achieving results in these areas. I will naturally convey your opinions to the Council, and would thank you again for your input.
Mr Schulz was right to indicate that certain ingredients should always be present, namely security for the citizen, together with the promotion of safety on the one hand and respect for basic rights on the other. I think that the Hague Programme succeeded in striking the right balance in this respect. Mrs Kósáné Kovács has drawn our attention to the need to do justice to fundamental rights in Europe, in which context she defended the Hague Programme. Mr Alvaro spoke about a good combination of scope for investigations and doing justice to basic rights.
Subsequently, the subject of what is meant by QMV, Qualified Majority Voting, has also been raised. This is already in place in many areas, but not in respect of illegal immigration. That will change when the new Constitutional Treaty enters into effect, for then QMV will apply across the board. Mr Giertych mentioned the fact that Member States are given compulsory immigration quotas. It so happens that asylum immigration, in terms of procedures, is a joint responsibility. That is why the Hague Programme is also so important, but that does not mean that in respect of QMV, immigration quotas can be imposed on Member States.
Mr Eurlings spoke wise words when he talked about the meaning of values and tolerance in society. Particularly in Europe, people should approach each other with respect, but that presupposes two things. On the one hand, due account must be taken of respect for the different values which typify Europe; on the other hand, boundaries must be set when people resort to hatred, intimidation and humiliation. This is exactly how we want to build on freedom and a peaceful society. That also means that we must watch the place hatred and racism take in the debate. Respectful cooperation and co-existence are precisely what is required. In that respect, you also have to choose your words carefully. I have noticed, also in my contacts with representatives of the Islam community, that extremism and terrorism are unequivocally repudiated in the Islam community too. That is why it is dangerous to immediately associate Islam, for example, with terrorism. It is precisely the terrorists who take advantage of religion in order to commit immoral deeds, which must be emphatically repudiated. That is why it is also so important for different groups, whether they be Christian, Humanist, non-religious or Islamic, to join forces in order to put a stop to violence and extremism. In this Parliament, the importance of aid to victims was mentioned, and rightly so; this was a question raised by Mr Mayor Oreja. There is a European action plan against terrorism that was laid down in the European Council of March, which contains a section on solidarity with victims of terrorism. The Dutch Presidency plans to elaborate on that aspect in the December European Council.
Mrs Lambert mooted the idea of a human rights centre. The Commission published a communication about changing the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna to a European human rights centre. That is currently being discussed in the Council and decisions in this respect will be taken under the Luxembourg Presidency.
Finally, with regard to the Hague Programme, Mrs Flautre has spoken, and expressed her concerns, about reception in the region. It is useful to note that when we mention reception in the region, this will always be done in consultation with the UNHCR.
I should now like to turn to the Lisbon strategy. I have noticed that there is much support for the strategy within this Parliament too, which is geared to strengthening Europe’s economy, and the need for reforms has been underlined. In that context, I would also refer to Mr Kok’s report, the report of the Employment Task Force, that was discussed some time ago. In addition to these favourable comments, though, some voices of criticism have also been heard. Mrs Lambert and Mrs Zimmer spring to mind. They claim from time to time that there is no alternative to the Lisbon strategy. Is that true? I should like to note once again that the Lisbon strategy combines economic dynamism, social cohesion and doing justice to sustainable development. It is the combination of those three components which has also come to the fore in the conclusions of the European Council. I therefore beg to differ with those who claim that Mr Kok, along with his high-level group, has paid insufficient attention to the social and environmental dimensions. The environment has been sufficiently covered, particularly since it is based on the idea of a win-win situation. In the European Council, Mr Kok maintains that we need growth precisely in order to retain the European social model.
Finally, I would refer to Paragraph 5 of the conclusions of the European Council in which it is stated, and rightly so, that a balanced strategy with economic, social and environmental dimensions is needed in order to strengthen competitiveness."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples