Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-27-Speech-3-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060927.3.3-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I realise that, in the very few minutes available, it is going to be extremely difficult to reply even briefly to all the suggestions and remarks made by those who have taken the floor in the two and a half hours or so of this important debate.
I should like to make a couple of final considerations. The first concerns solidarity. Many people have mentioned solidarity. I believe that we need to take a global approach towards solidarity, just as we do towards immigration, because we must show solidarity above all to the victims of people trafficking. That is the first kind of solidarity that we must have.
Then there is the solidarity that we must show towards the African countries of origin, as well as the transit countries, as they too are exposed to an often uncontrolled flow of people. Then there is also the solidarity among Member States within the European Union. We must not deny the importance of mutual solidarity among countries in the European Union, since it is one of the forms that the word ‘solidarity’ must take. How can we forget that countries like Malta or the small islands of the Canaries or Lampedusa cannot deal with the ongoing flow of illegal immigrants by themselves? That, too, is solidarity.
There is the human solidarity towards the people who land on our coasts; there is also the solidarity that countries far from the Mediterranean must show towards countries surrounded by or bordering the Mediterranean.
The second topic is respect for the law. Ladies and gentlemen, I do not think the European Union can be asked to turn something illegal into something legal, because, where a law has been broken, the infringement remains an infringement. Those who deal in human beings must be punished severely and without tolerance. When people provide work illegally and under cover and take advantage of illegal immigrant workers, there have to be sanctions. When people get into the EU by breaking all the laws and remain in the EU by breaking all the laws, European policy must respect the dignity of the individual, but it must also be credible and must send those who have broken the law back to their countries of origin; otherwise we shall be giving the impression that they can break the law and nothing will happen to them.
Lastly, my final consideration concerns our institutional and constitutional policy. We have talked about it a great deal: we need vision, as Mr Schulz and many others have said, to steer and to activate the political processes. I cannot imagine us lagging behind civil society; I cannot imagine us, as institutions, waiting for civil society to give us a push or even to show its dissatisfaction with our capacity for political leadership.
Many people mentioned the need to give up national self-interest. I see this as a central theme: if we and the Member States’ governments realise that not even they stand to benefit from sticking to their national self-interests, then those governments will understand that national pride, which many of us consider important, can be upheld rather better if we pool our common policies.
Upholding national pride by maintaining that immigration or terrorism can be addressed solely through national policies is not a matter of upholding national pride or upholding the great principles behind so many countries’ traditions; it is merely not responding to what the people are demanding. That is why we need a political vision with the courage to go in a different direction.
Mr Rajamäki, you mentioned earlier that today’s debate concerned certain priorities for the European Union, one of which is certainly the fight against terrorism. We have not talked about it much today, but you are all perfectly aware that just this summer, thanks to some painstaking cooperation, the security authorities in three European countries – the United Kingdom, Denmark and Germany – have foiled some terrorist attacks that could have proved devastating. Terrorism still remains the main threat to our democracy.
In my view, there is no link between terrorism and immigration, and I share the opinions of those who have pointed that out. Immigration is undoubtedly a separate priority: it is a challenge, not a danger to the European Union. Many of you have mentioned co-development policies, especially with African countries. I can tell you that the Commission, which is always somewhat ambitious when drawing up proposals, has proposed allocating EUR 17 billion – a substantial sum – to the new European fund for the development of countries such as those in Africa, and that the co-development policies that many have called for will be enhanced accordingly.
There will be co-development policies targeting institutional stabilisation, the fight against corruption, and good governance. These are all co-development initiatives aimed at improving their capacity to prevent the flow of migrants, as many of you hope.
Mr Barón Crespo mentioned the problem of the take-up of the available European funds. I fully agree with Mr Barón Crespo, and I call on the Member States once more to draft some projects: European funds can only be spent if projects are put forward by EU Member States. In recent years, unfortunately, several funds made available by the Commission have not been spent for lack of projects. I invite all the Member States to put forward more projects, so that further initiatives can be financed.
A great deal has been said about prevention, protection and maritime borders, referring to the Mediterranean. We are going to submit a project for the integrated management of the Mediterranean border to the ministers in Luxembourg for their approval. I should like to say something to all those who have spoken in harsh terms, which I do not endorse, of a kind of ‘European armada’ to wage war on immigrants. I should just like to mention – and this is directed in particular to Mrs Flautre, whom I hold in great esteem – that had it not been for the patrols in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic this summer, had it not been for thousands of coastguards, police and security operatives, many thousands of immigrants would have drowned at sea.
The primary purpose of the patrol boats is to save people’s lives at sea and not to wage war on immigrants. The truth is therefore precisely the opposite of what was suggested: it is in the interests of safety that we intend to propose a system that all the governments have asked us to provide.
The subject of the countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean certainly deserves to be debated thoroughly. With regard to Libya, I shall only say that that country has agreed to talks with the European Union, which we shall begin in practical terms on the basis, above all, of a guarantee of full compliance with the rules on the dignity of the person and respect for the individual. We have demanded this of Libya just as we demand it of all our other non-EU interlocutors. Libya has asked for help in controlling its southern border: its 2 000-km desert border is practically uncontrollable, and one of the requests that we have received is: ‘help us to control this border better, and we can help you to control people before they set off and, above all, to eradicate people trafficking,’ which unfortunately often takes place across the Mediterranean.
We have a duty to start talks with Libya, and we must do so on the basis of mutual respect between the European Union and its non-European partners. The African Union-European Union conference on immigration, to be held in Tripoli, will be a further signal to make Libya understand that we want not only Libya but also all the countries in North Africa to be seriously involved."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples