Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-06-Speech-4-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060706.3.4-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I naturally agree with the thrust of what has been said. In the short time available to me, I should like to mention a few points that will help me to set out my position clearly on a number of issues and proposals.
I should first like to reassure Mr van den Burg regarding his extremely important question on the need to make a clear distinction between security-related and development-related spending. It is obviously not a matter of using development resources to finance security measures. The development budget should not be funding these measures. From this point of view, you can be reassured by the Commission.
The second point that I consider important is the old chestnut of the ‘brain drain’. As Commissioner for development, I should like there to be no doubt as to my commitment on this issue. I am opposed to the policies of some Member States, which actually call for, and tempt people with, selective immigration. In my view, selective immigration is a cynical concept of development and I do not accept it. In this regard, I am suspicious of suggestions and ideas revolving around the notion of the ‘green card’. I feel it is very dangerous to play with ideas that clearly tie in with ‘selective immigration’. I do not like this approach and I feel it is right to make this point clearly.
I must say, Mrs Aubert, that I warmly welcome your call for investment in public policies. You speak of the EU’s public policies, but one should really focus principally on the public policies of the partner states and of developing countries. This is one of my obsessions because it forms the very foundations of reconstruction and development. It is extremely difficult to encourage citizens from developing countries who live without prospects, who feel that they have no prospects, who live without access to the basic services that any normal society should provide, to stay at home and contribute to their countries.
In other words, everything that revolves around the states’ ability to guarantee basic services – namely access to education, health, administration, justice, culture, basic goods – should form a central part of our development strategies. There is no doubt in my mind that therein lie the ultimate answers to the phenomenon of immigration. The essential functions of the State, so dear to those like me who believe in the primacy of the secular nature of States, must be developed. This is something I consider important.
I should like to commend all of the speakers without mentioning all of them by name. I agree entirely with Mr Kulakowski, who placed the accent on extremely close ties between migration and development. The proper response to migration is development, purely and simply. The answer is not to close the borders, to send people back or ‘selective immigration’. The proper response lies in development projects aimed at strengthening, improving or rebuilding the countries concerned. In a number of developing countries, one can say that there is no longer a State and I would urge the EU, our institutions and the ACP countries particularly affected to come together around the negotiating table.
Lastly, I should like to say to Mr Dillen that he has quoted Mr Rocard totally out of context. Of course Europe cannot absorb all of the world’s misery. I should like to tell him, however, that the wealthy world could do so comfortably, so there is no excuse.
That, Mr Dillen, is simply a matter of political will. I know that in this area you have none."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples