Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-06-Speech-3-426"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050706.31.3-426"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, like a curate’s egg, as they say, that introduction by the Commissioner was good in parts but not in all parts. I am greatly honoured to have conduct of these matters. My respect for not only the institutions of Europe but also for the Swiss institutions and people knows no bounds. It was only because of the willingness of the Swiss people, through their referendum on 5 June, to see greater cooperation between Switzerland and the EU that I was able to proceed with my proposals.
As the Commissioner has already pointed out, these are good proposals. They are radical, particularly from a Swiss perspective, because although Switzerland retains its independence, if the report is adopted its borders will now effectively allow more movement of people. It will retain strong control over movements of goods but there will be greater movement of people, much better cooperation between law enforcement authorities and, through Switzerland's involvement in the Dublin
close involvement in determining who is responsible in the case of difficult asylum applications.
These are all very good, progressive and acceptable developments. They could well be the start of many more agreements based on a similar approach, an approach that was adopted previously with both Norway and Iceland and is now being used with Switzerland.
As I said, I very much respect the decision of the Swiss people on 5 June and I am therefore happy to proceed. However, although I have heard the Commissioner's explanation on the mixed committees and hence the legal base, I still have considerable problems.
I look at this not so much as a lawyer myself, but on the basis of our legal advice, which appears to be ambivalent. From my point of view it indicates that the right procedure would have been the assent procedure rather than consultation.
That is the basis on which I intend to proceed. I still hope that we might be able to reach an accommodation here, because the purpose of my two amendments to this report is to make sure that this is an assent and not a consultation procedure. Obviously there might be an ongoing dispute. I am disappointed in that part of the Commissioner’s speech, because she seems to indicate that she is happy that her legal advice is better than mine. I suppose you do not always have the same legal advice when you have two lawyers, any more than two economists ever agree on financial matters. Nevertheless, I feel very strongly that this is important, not only in this particular case but also for other matters and agreements that we might bring to Parliament for consideration in future. My committee is quite clear about this, having taken advice, and I too feel very strongly.
I do not want to be seen to be blocking progress or obstructing the will of the Swiss people, who are very interested in the outcome of our discussions and what I am doing here. However, it is in everybody’s interests that we make it clear that the European Parliament very much guards its right to be involved in assent procedures in the limited fields in which they apply. We feel very strongly about that.
I hope that the Commissioner will be able to reconsider. The Council is not present, but it had a similar view. I would like to see the matter reconsidered, because these freer relationships can only be to the benefit not only of the Swiss people but also of all of us in the European Union, especially its institutions, and in particular the European Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples