Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-15-Speech-3-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041215.2.3-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am grateful for the remarks made by many and of which I have taken good note in preparation for the European Council that is due to be held on Thursday and Friday. Let me start with the fundamental debate raised by a number of Members of this House, that being the debate about what the European Union is, what Europe is. I am very much at one with a number of Members, of whom Mr Watson was the first and most outspoken, who state that the European Union is not a religious community. I am also in agreement with Mr Cohn-Bendit, who pointed out that Europe is not a cultural community either. As Mr Schulz and others stated, Europe, the European Union, is a community of values. European integration is a political project rather than a religious one. In that connection, Mrs Uca made the helpful remark that, with Turkey in mind, that conclusion can also be a bridge to Islam and indeed, we can use it to illustrate that Europe is a political and not a religious project. Conversely, Turkey can use it to demonstrate that a country that is Islamic for the most part can also be a democratic and functioning constitutional state.
At the request of a number of Members, I am happy to inform you specifically of the European Council’s intention, next Thursday and Friday, to decide whether, in principle, to appoint a European human rights ambassador.
Many in this House spoke about the financial perspective. In his introductory remarks, Mr Barroso mentioned the importance of added value where the multi-annual budget and budget discipline are concerned, and he had good reason to do so, but he also expressed his concern, which was subsequently given greater emphasis by others, about the 1% approach and the importance of sufficient funding for Europe’s priorities. It is therefore useful to indicate the Council’s position on this score. We subscribe to many of the priorities mentioned here, but it remains important in every financial discussion, in addition to the priorities, to determine the posteriorities, and not only count the priorities. That is exactly what we in the Presidency have done with what we call our ‘building blocks’ approach, in which we have tried to draft a summary and compile posteriorities rather than only priorities. I can reassure a number of Members who are worried about what is going to happen on Thursday and Friday. Mrs Grossetête feared that we would be taking a decision about 1% which would not be understood by the citizens. The Council has not adopted a position on the 1%, let that be very clear. Based on the Commission proposals, which are still the guiding principle – because, after all, the new Parliament quite rightly values them greatly – the Council has simply outlined the positions of the Member States, both priorities and posteriorities, and it is on those that we will be basing our decisions.
I am keen to concur with Mr Watson in his concerns about the financial accountability and his concern about the fact that, for the tenth time now, the Court of Auditors has not issued a Statement of Assurance about expenditure. During our presidency, we have taken steps to improve that situation by means of single audits, and we will discuss this in more detail in the spring.
As far as the EU’s external policy is concerned, I think we have experienced a historic moment, one that was mentioned by many. Mr Schulz was the first one to speak about it, and was very frank, as was Mrs Napoletano. That moment had to do with Ukraine. I think that the stance that we – the European Parliament, the Commission and Council – have taken has demonstrated our ability to speak with one voice where external policy is concerned. In my view, that is a very important step in the progress we managed to bring about in the democratisation process in Ukraine. It is also a very important step toward speaking with one voice in external policy. That is a first step and we intend to take more of them on the basis of the new Treaty.
I can be brief about the next subject, namely the Lisbon strategy, which was raised by a number of Members, including Mr Maaten, Mr Kirkhope and Mr Titley. You know that this subject is not on this Council’s agenda, as it will be raised in the spring. However, we will persevere, and it is true that the implementation of the Lisbon strategy is one of the key components. As Mr Maaten and Mr Kirkhope stated, it is also true that deregulation and the reduction of the administrative burden is crucial for our competitiveness in the world.
I turn, finally, to the issue of public involvement and the importance of transparency and openness. What I should like to say to Mrs Buitenweg with regard to openness is that we have, during our presidency, tried to create more openness in the Council meetings wherever possible. In addition, a unique meeting took place in Amsterdam involving all European Affairs ministers. The whole of this meeting was public, as was an informal industrial meeting.
I should like to end on an optimistic note. Mr Maaten congratulated the presidency on promoting the public’s involvement by means of good communication. I am not certain whether it has anything to do with that, but according to the latest Eurobarometer survey, there is an increase in the public’s positive involvement. The percentage of citizens who say that EU membership is a good thing has risen from 48% to 56%. That is not enough, but is nevertheless a big step forward and I should like to end on this happy note.
In any case, I would like to thank you for your attention.
Some of you, including Mr Maaten and Mr Lehne, have spoken in explicit terms and with appreciation about the series of conferences on the nature of Europe and the essence of the values we share. One of the important lessons that we can draw from the discussion about European values and European identity is that we must, in fact, be careful about focusing on European identity. We all know, from the past century, what the adverse effects can be of an identity that has been imposed from above. We also realise that in terms of shared European values, many of those are, in fact, universal values, and we want them to be exactly that. Despite this, there are discernable European traits with regard to the way in which we apply those values, how we can invoke them and how we organise them. There are definitely specific European accents that are evident in those values, one important example being tolerance.
This brings me to the enlargement debate, which attracted many speakers, starting with the debate about Turkey. We held that debate yesterday and concluded that, because of the concerns about it, we will, in time, need to clearly demonstrate the huge advantages of the possibility of Turkey joining. Mr Schulz mentioned security as one of the advantages. Mr Watson noted that Turkey sufficiently meets the criteria, and that is also, in agreement with the Commission’s conclusion, the presidency’s position following the entry into force of the six laws. Mr Eurlings and others pointed out once again that it is important to maintain pressure on Turkey in relation to the developments needed in that country in respect of human rights, religious freedom and other political criteria. That is precisely why the presidency has decided, based on the Commission proposals, to come up with a new framework for future negotiations about accession. That framework allows for more pressure to be brought to bear and offers more guarantees for smooth progress. This so-called ‘emergency stop option’, in other words an option of suspension, offers guarantees in relation to the sensitive political criteria.
It is understandable that a number of Members of this House should, once again, have raised the issue of Cyprus. Mr Barroso included it in his introduction, and Mr Adamou and Mr Dimitrakopoulos alluded to it too. I should like to reiterate the Dutch Presidency’s key position on this score in the preparations of the Council that will be held at the end of this week. We do indeed want Turkey to recognise the fact that Cyprus is a Member of the European Union and is one of the Twenty-Five countries. We want to bring this about by getting Turkey to sign the protocol to the association agreement.
Mr van den Berg has asked specifically whether the presidency can confirm that the intention is that no accession date be set. I can confirm very emphatically that that is indeed the presidency’s intention. Another question, related to the political criteria, was whether the presidency can confirm that Turkey will not join unless it is ready. Here too, I can definitely confirm that to be the case.
Finally in connection with Turkey, I should like to raise the sensitive issue which will be discussed presently in Parliament, namely the so-called open-endedness of the negotiations. Once again, Mr van den Berg asked specifically what the presidency’s intention is. Let me make it clear once more: the presidency’s intention is that these should be accession negotiations with accession in mind. That is my first point. My second is that, following on from the Commission’s comments, it is an open-ended process. There is no guarantee as to the outcome. The third element is that European cohesion must in any event remain sufficiently guaranteed, but the Dutch Presidency’s understanding for Thursday’s and Friday’s conclusions is that there is indeed no Plan B.
Since we will be discussing Romania and Bulgaria later on, I will now confine myself to a few fundamental remarks in response to questions in this respect. Mr Watson and Mr Becsey, among others, have insisted on a separate approach for Bulgaria on the one hand and Romania on the other. In that connection, it is useful to point out that, as you know, no distinction can be drawn in the agreement, but one can, if necessary, be drawn with regard to the date of accession, because the option has been introduced and agreed, if there is cause for this, to decide to suspend accession of the country in question for one year at most. That is also the response to the questions by Mr Eurlings, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and Mr Kirkhope, who are still deeply concerned about the situation in Romania and emphasise the importance of continuing to bring maximum pressure to bear on the developments there. I share that view, and that is why we in the Presidency have proposed that the Council should conclude that we want additional provisions in terms of monitoring and specific benchmarks for Romania, coupled with a potential sanction, if necessary, of one year’s suspension.
A number of Members have made reference to Croatia, and, as it is not a separate item on the agenda, I think that, despite the uproar in the Chamber, it would be useful to give you a precise response to this. Mr Pinheiro and Mr Becsey have indicated that Croatia has made much progress in moving closer to Europe, and that it is a European country. I should like to emphatically endorse both of these statements. Much progress has been made and the country is located in the centre of Europe. In addition, Mr Watson, Mr van den Berg and Mr Swoboda were right to point out that full cooperation with the ICTY (International Criminal Tribune for the Former Yugoslavia) is of vital importance. I would say to Mr Swoboda and to Mr Becsey that it would, of course, be good if we could make that positive step, also bearing in mind the fulfilment of Croatia’s role as a model in the Balkans. I agree with Mr Swoboda that we must try to have a positive decision. That is the presidency’s commitment and that means that indeed, we can decide in favour of opening negotiations at the beginning of next year, provided that these are specifically linked to full cooperation with the ICTY.
Another important point that many of you have raised is that of combating terrorism, the major significance of which has also been underlined by President Barroso and Mr Pinheiro, among others. In addition, Mr Watson, Mrs Malmström and Mrs Buitenweg were right, in my view, to point out the importance of striking a balance between fighting terrorism and fundamental rights. I agree with them, and I think that Mr Maarten was right to point out that we, in the Hague Programme, have demonstrated the Council’s desire to preserve that balance. Mr Eurlings specifically asked about ways of banning organisations. He will be aware that that is a responsibility, a competence, of the Member States, but we will definitely ensure that information about it is exchanged between them. Mr Eurlings, and others, see the exchange of information as crucial to the fight against terrorism. That is the cornerstone of this presidency, and is also included in the Council’s agenda for Thursday and Friday. Over these past six months, we have made concrete progress in making it easier to exchange criminal records, collating intelligence and in relation to situation centres and threat analyses that can be carried out in those centres. As you know, we will be asking the Commission to table a more detailed proposal for the exchange of information, as provided for in the Hague Programme."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples