Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-314"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.33.3-314"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, the June European Council marked an important stage in proceedings for several reasons. I should like to mention one in particular. I believe that the June Council put to bed once and for all the idea that there is some kind of arbitration between the institutional progress made by the Union and the implementation of new policies. Previously, it was often said that, if you spoke of the political agenda, an agenda focused on results, on practical projects, you were in some ways sidestepping the institutional debate. If you spoke of the Constitution, on the other hand, you were accused of navel-gazing, of being obsessed with technical aspects. I believe that this idea has been buried for good.
It is true that we still have problems in this area, but I believe that the approach that we have, the global approach that the Commission has formulated, may be the solution for Europe. We must get down to work straightaway and look upon this as a long-term challenge. We should therefore coordinate the use of internal and external instruments by enhancing the dialogue with countries of origin, transit countries and countries of destination, which means paying more attention to integration and to intercultural dialogue, too.
We need to see things as they really are: if we are to act effectively, we need to have adequate tools. It is therefore important for us to improve our decision-making, so that we can start acting quicker, and this in the field of immigration and in the field of justice and internal affairs in general. I strongly agree with what the Finnish Presidency’s representative just said. If the Member States really want to show that they are determined to work together in the fight against illegal immigration and on immigration policy, justice and security, they now have a good opportunity to demonstrate this desire: by making the decision-making process at European level simpler, faster, more effective, and more practical! It would make no sense for us to deprive ourselves of the institutional opportunities that already exist today.
Mr President, the final area I should like to raise is enlargement – final in the order of presentation but by no means final in order of importance. To some it might not seem that the issues we face this week show the policy of enlargement as being effectively delivered. I want to explain why this is wrong.
In the first place, I find criticism odd when we are only a few weeks away from another step forward for enlargement. The vote of this House yesterday not only showed your confidence in two new Commissioners but also symbolised the importance this Parliament gives to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union. It also symbolised the key role this Parliament has played in making enlargement possible and making it work. The benefits of the 2004 enlargement are clear to the Europe of 25. I have no doubt that we shall look back on the move to 27 with similar satisfaction.
However, the European Council will focus on two issues: integration capacity and the accession negotiations with Turkey.
The Commission’s report on integration capacity is the recognition that there are legitimate questions about the implications of enlargement. Everyone here knows that there has been no attempt by the Union to conceal the consequences of enlargement. Why should we, when the evidence before us points so strongly to the benefits?
However, we must respect concerns and redouble our efforts to show how seriously the Union takes its responsibility to ensure that enlargement works. Yes, enlargement works for the incoming Member States and for the European Union they join. We should all accept a responsibility to engage more strongly in this debate. I have said very often that enlargement cannot proceed bureaucratically or even diplomatically: it has to be done democratically. We have to win the confidence of public opinion in Europe.
Two weeks ago the Commission made its recommendation on Turkey. As a result, this week the Council agreed to suspend negotiations on a number of key chapters. This is a clear signal that a breach of legal obligations cannot be accepted. At the same time, it is clearly in our own strategic interests to continue with the negotiation process. Both sides need to play by the rules. We hope that the Turkish side will show its willingness to fulfil its obligations.
We understand it is important to show how credible we are when we speak about the conditions for enlargement. We need to have the support of the public for enlargement in order to show not only that we are credible and our commitments should be respected but also that we are fair and firm in the analysis of the progress the different candidate countries make regarding their accession process.
We know that we need to keep candidate countries motivated. Enlargement is such a positive force for progress that it is in all our interests that candidates pursue difficult reforms on a road that is bound to be long. Croatia has made a good start and, if the reform effort continues, is likely to be the next acceding country. The countries of the Western Balkans have also made progress, and we have offered them a clear European perspective and should show them that we are serious about that European perspective for the Balkans.
The two-level strategy adopted in June shows how the two aspects are linked and how they can mutually enhance one another. Indeed, for as long as we have to work with a Union that is less effective and less democratic than we know it could be, our efforts to implement the policies expected by our people will never be entirely convincing. Each time we put forward policies designed to improve our citizens' lives, it can only make people feel more confident about a further step being taken on the road to European integration.
We need a renewed consensus on enlargement that both recognises the strategic value of enlargement and ensures our capacity to function while gradually integrating new members. The Commission will continue to stick to the core principles: respect for commitments made, a vigorous and fair assessment, and a search to improve the quality of the process. The enlargement process has shown itself to be as resilient as ever.
In conclusion, I want to tell you that I sincerely hope that the European Council this week will confirm that an enlarged European Union will be ready to face the challenges of today and of tomorrow. Thank you for your attention.
The Finnish Presidency has demonstrated a perfect understanding of this state of affairs, hence six months of pragmatic and targeted progress. Those six months have shown that there is a genuine understanding of what Parliament, the Council and the Commission can offer Europe when they work together. The results are there to see: an agreement on sensitive issues, such as REACH, the adoption of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund – I am particularly proud of that because, as you know, it was a Commission initiative – a rapid reaction to the Lebanese crisis, the smooth preparation for Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession – sensitive subject that it is! – and efforts to make the Union’s external policy more coherent. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that progress has indeed been made.
We come now to the European Council – this week’s Council – which will focus on the crucial issues, on which the Finnish Presidency has already shown the Union to be determined and proactive.
I will begin by mentioning innovation. The debate at Lahti on this subject was of a high quality. This debate left behind the image of European leaders who are genuinely determined to act in favour of innovation, and I believe that, right now, it is fair to say that innovation is one of the European Union’s most important political priorities: I am delighted about that. As you will see on reading the annual report on the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment, which we published yesterday, innovation is prioritised not only at Community level, but also at the level of the various national policies. I therefore believe that what the European leaders said at Lahti were not empty words: important progress has been made in many Member States. However, if the aim is to stimulate a real change in the European economy, the European dimension cannot be overlooked. Admittedly, we need to make more effort at national level, but we also need to seize the opportunity to make the very most of the European dimension.
Your institution, Parliament, has also focused attention on intellectual property rights, on joint technological initiatives and on standardisation and so many areas requiring action at European level. I believe that the European Council will make progress with these tasks.
On the subject of innovation, as on that of energy and climate change, the Council is doubtless going to prepare the ground for a European Council in spring 2007, which I believe will be very important in this regard. I am pleased that the European Commission has been able to contribute, and to contribute a great deal, to these efforts in the form of our proposal for a European Institute of Technology.
The European Institute of Technology is not simply going to contribute directly to innovation in Europe; it will also be symbolic – it is true that, sometimes, symbols are very important – it will be symbolic, I would say, of the way in which the European Union can demonstrate ambition and show itself to be innovative. The support of the MEPs for the European Institute of Technology is both welcome and essential. I hope that Parliament and the Council will include the European Institute of Technology among their priorities, so that it might become operational as soon as possible. I should like to thank the Finnish Presidency for the unfailing support it has given to this great project for Europe.
The next issue is immigration: no image hit people harder in autumn than that of the men and women willing to risk their lives in order to land on European shores. There was a real urgent need to act, and I am delighted that Europe showed itself to be equal to the task. Our global approach to immigration, coupled with closer cooperation at maritime borders and with enhanced instruments such as Frontex, will further strengthen our serious reaction with a very far reaching scope and practical implementation. The European Council’s adoption of this approach would unambiguously demonstrate that this is a common problem, to which the Union will provide a common solution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples