Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-10-Speech-1-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080310.17.1-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your contributions.
Why, however, are we discussing this issue in this House today? Because even though there are clear laws, even though there are detailed agreements, there has been a temptation, if I may put it that way, to jump ahead. A temptation which may be politically comprehensible to the citizens of those countries involved, but which is not institutionally acceptable. It is for that reason that we have had to react, obviously in a spirit of solidarity with all the Member States, including those aspiring to enter the visa waiver programme.
What have we done? We have asked Coreper, that is to say the ambassadors of the Member States, to agree on a baseline document. We consider that document to be a red line: it reiterates what can and cannot be done. We have also asked the Member States to ensure that any political negotiations abide by that red line, that key point, and have reiterated, for instance, that exchanges of information over and above those for which the European agreements already make provision cannot be agreed to, and that issues such as the return of ‘overstayers’ have to be negotiated at European and not at national level. Matters of a kind that, frankly, it would not have been necessary to reiterate had there been a formal mandate. We have done so for the sake of clarity, to say once and for all that we understand the concerns of the Member States which are not at present in the visa waiver programme, but that the rules of the European Union take precedence over those concerns. Were we to call that into question, even once, it would set a precedent that would be followed by many more, each more dangerous than the last.
In conclusion, Madam President, we are working this week to propose a negotiating mandate to the US that will make it very clear that all the Member States, unanimously, even the representatives of the Czech Republic and Estonia, have agreed that the baseline cannot be overstepped in individual negotiations. Are there margins for individual negotiations? Yes, certainly, in areas for which Europe is not competent, that is obvious. However, for all those issues for which Europe is competent, and they are the overwhelming majority, the Member States are giving us a unanimous mandate; that, I may say, is a line that the Slovenian Presidency is absolutely determined to follow. Tomorrow I shall ask the Commission for a formal mandate to inform the United States of our line and, as regards that line, there can be no concessions or retractions.
As freedom of movement is, in my view, a fundamental right of our fellow European citizens, which we recognised by enlarging Schengen, the first thing that has to be said is that the European Commission and the European institutions must work towards an absolute and not a relative result. All the citizens of all the Member States must be allowed to travel to the United States without a personal visa. That is our clear objective and, as a result, I understand the apprehension and concern and also the unease of some Members from Member States which have been in the European Union for many years, such as Greece, or have been members for four years.
A first aspect has to be clarified, however, if we are to have a fair picture: it is not true that we have achieved no results! Our work at a European rather than a national level has provided significant results, very recently with Canada, for instance. I visited Canada last year, at a time when none of the new Member States were included in the visa waiver programme with Canada. Twelve months on, they all are.
We have agreed a system of parity of treatment with Australia, with the result that there is no discrimination between the old and new – in inverted commas – Member States of the European Union.
We have yet to achieve such results with the United States, it is true, but I should like to remind Members who spoke of four years, that is to say the date on which they entered the European Union, that the United States changed its law less than a year ago, in August 2007. It is only since that date that the United States has said that it is willing to extend the visa waiver programme. It is not therefore possible to speak of four years, leaving aside the fact that negotiations with the United States date back even further, but of less than 12 months of negotiations on the basis of a new law. What we negotiated before, on the basis of a law which has now changed, is obviously no longer of any relevance.
In my view, we must work with the United States to bring all European citizens within a regime where they do not need personal visas, without some Member States thinking that they can achieve such a result before the others. I say that very frankly. Why? Because that would give the upper hand in negotiations to our interlocutor, in this case our American friends, who may well be our friends and allies, but are nevertheless conducting negotiations, and will press on with those negotiations if they find any weaknesses in Europe’s house. We must ensure that we do not show any weakness: that is the point and we must be very clear about it.
You will remember that when I presented the Europe-United States PNR agreement to this House, an agreement which some criticised and others welcomed, I said that the agreement would place Europe in a stronger position vis-à-vis the USA. I should now like to say that those who supported the European PNR were right, because one of the key points of the mandate that we are requesting is that there can be no exchanges of data and information over and above what is provided for in that agreement, and if such requests were to be made, the European Union would reject them.
Therein lies the proof that such a European agreement makes up for the weak position of Member States from which further data have been requested – and there is no doubt that they have been requested – as well as access to databases which belong to us, to Europe. As a result, however, of that agreement which some criticised and others supported, we can now tell our American friends very clearly that it is not possible to go beyond the European PNR agreement. That is a sign, in my view, of strength and not of weakness.
We already know what can and cannot be done. Our regulations, European laws and the agreements that we have signed and initialled set that out. In that respect, it is obvious that Europe has to speak with a single voice when tackling these issues, and it is also obvious that the ‘divide and rule’ approach is the most mistaken approach of all from a European point of view and is an approach which we must resist and which the Institutions obviously have to oppose."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples