Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.8.3-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I feel that we should make the purposes of this report that we are discussing much clearer than is achieved by its entry on the agenda. I do not know how many Members are aware that a Euro-Mediterranean Forum for women Members of Parliament is to start tomorrow. This forum was not the result of a European Parliament initiative. This is the second year it has been staged: the first took place last year in Naples on the initiative of the national parliaments. Parliament did not take part at all precisely because the forum was not the result of consultation between the European and national parliaments.
In the meantime, the – in my opinion, wise – decision has been taken to participate in this assembly through the appointment of two representatives – Mrs Avilés and myself – as part of the Presidency bureau and of four Parliamentary representatives to attend the plenary forum. It was decided by the forum bureau
to give the women from the European Parliament the subject of 'Globalisation, migration and citizenship': this is the title of our contribution and also of the contribution of the speakers from Tunisia, for the reports expound two different viewpoints.
To be honest, I do not know whether it was wise to base a procedure involving a plenary vote on our contribution, a contribution which will have to be somewhat freer than a simple report. This has caused problems: in fact, in tackling the subject of migration and, to a lesser degree, citizenship, we have raised problems for the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market – problems which I can understand – and some incomprehension within the groups, since this concept of Euro-Mediterranean citizenship is not a legal concept. I should like to banish totally the suspicion that we might be discussing something which would then require formalisation. We know how difficult we are finding it already to advance a meaningful debate on, for example, the idea of coordinating migration and creating a migration policy.
Nevertheless, we have begun to tackle the political and cultural concept of Euro-Mediterranean citizenship, for example in the Parliamentary Forum held a few weeks ago in Brussels. What is the purpose of this initiative? To enable us, within the partnership that we have initiated with these countries, to build a relationship on democracy issues, on respect for human rights, on the tendency of certain forms of progress in those societies linked to a concept of integration based on shared values. In my opinion, it is possible to meet this challenge and it will provide us with the opportunity to tackle, together with them, for example, the issue of respect for human rights – a recurring subject in our relationship with these countries about which there is always a hint of interference in their internal affairs – on fresh, equal ground, which will challenge those societies – but also our own – where, for example, the issue of migration poses cultural problems and problems of integration and convergence.
I therefore appeal to the rapporteur. If she insists on there being a vote in Parliament, I am afraid there is a danger that this report may not be adopted. I suggest that we leave it as a contribution of the Committee on Women's Rights. A contribution which will not implicate Parliament as an instrument which we will be able to invoke, which will allow us to be freer in the forthcoming debate in Malta and which will not be binding upon this House. I would ask you sincerely to consider this option."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples