Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.3.2-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first to say a word to the Council. Please do not take it personally, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, we think highly of you, we are always pleased to see you and you do excellent work. But there were long drawn out negotiations over the date for this debate so as to enable President-in-Office Louis Michel to be present. Then we agreed on this Tuesday. Now he has stayed in Durban, which I do not want to criticise in itself, but I would like to say that the Council must be reformed
I do not believe there will be a mass migration. I have the figures for the Federal Republic of Germany: in the last ten years, 900 000 people came to the Federal Republic of Germany from Poland, but 700 000 of them went back again. Commissioner, you are quite right: If the countries have the prospect of becoming members of the European Union, their citizens will not migrate but will prefer to stay at home. That is after all quite natural human behaviour, and so we should not demonise this question or abuse it for internal political reasons. We need a great deal of flexibility for the questions of freedom of movement.
Commissioner, I very much welcome what you said about border controls. On the one hand, the borders must remain open, the right to asylum must be guaranteed. People wanting to enter the Union across the external borders must also be treated humanely, and that is why we advocate a European border police. We should show solidarity, that is the countries with no external borders with the countries that have an external border. A European multinational border police would be a sensible way of cultivating mutual solidarity here.
We must, of course, also think of the border regions of the present countries of the European Union, which will have problems, and I note from a press release that you are also particularly sympathetic to the problems of these border regions. We will also increase acceptance in our border regions.
I would like to draw your attention to one very particular problem, Commissioner, namely developments in Romania. We were very concerned to see that an opposition party that is not represented in parliament but which has a long tradition, the PNTCD, was banned there last week with dubious legal arguments, and I would ask you to look into the matter, because democracy and debate on a democratic basis are a high value and we ought to pay attention to that in those countries.
A final comment, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck: We know that in your case European policy is in good hands. We are approaching the Laeken summit, and if the decision about the convention, about a conference, is taken there, would you kindly ensure that the accession countries, too, are involved in the process in a sensible manner for the purpose of consultation and information, because we owe it to those countries because we shall have a common future with them in the European Union.
that foreign ministers are the wrong people, not only because EU policy is not foreign policy, but because foreign ministers do not have the time to perform their duties in the European Union! We are going to be talking about governance – Commission President Prodi will be saying something about it later –, and the change must begin with the Council, not only as regards transparency, but we also need new structures so that the relevant members of the national governments are also always present here in Parliament. In other words, to be specific, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, if you had full powers over European policy and were not now dependent on your foreign minister, we would welcome that. So that is no personal criticism of yourself.
We are very pleased that there is a broad majority across the groups here in Parliament – and with the Commission, too – on the questions of enlargement, and we say emphatically – as Mr Brok has also said – that enlargement is to everyone’s advantage, and we must say it in our member countries, too. National politicians, too, must say that enlargement is to the advantage of the present European Union and of the accession countries. No one would have thought 20 years ago that today we would be talking about the countries of central Europe being able to join our community of values. That is a tremendous historical development.
And I would also like to say a word of recognition to the accession countries, which have embarked on tremendous reforms after 50 years of communism. What they are doing is not a simple matter and instead of only ever giving voice, in the countries of the European Union, to certain fears about the dangers we should also say a word of recognition for the people in the accession countries for making this tremendous effort.
The accession countries also have dignity. I cannot understand why heads of government in the countries of the European Union tell the heads of government in the accession countries: Yes, we must demand a long period for freedom of movement because we have national elections. The accession countries also have dignity and an internal political situation, and our national heads of government ought to recognise that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples