Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-27-Speech-3-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020227.4.3-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr Poettering, I am very happy to answer your questions and I will try to be as brief as possible.
You raised the question of observers coming from the candidate countries to visit the Commission. In my opinion, this is a good idea. Technically, it will not be easy, but if we want the Commission to be able to work
up to speed as soon as enlargement has taken place, we must start to establish this relationship of training and learning now. It will not be easy because the candidate countries are not, of course, as yet in a position to decide who their future Commissioners will be, and the rules are not yet quite clear. I can assure you, however, that we are addressing the issue and we intend to resolve it openly and constructively.
The second point is security. I have always maintained that, like all serious problems, the major issue of macro-immigration is something that cannot be resolved at national level. It is absolutely impossible for the problem of the great waves of migration from the east and the south to be resolved purely by national measures. European cooperation is needed, and so we must conclude this element of the Tampere agenda and work together on protecting borders, as we proposed.
A further point is the Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank. What were the political and economic aims behind this? We have seen increasing dissatisfaction on the part of the southern Mediterranean countries in recent years, caused by our favouring the east – as they put it, in clear, direct terms. I explained that, in effect, we had been compelled by history to undertake this enlargement immediately but that I was committed to setting up a strategy for the south as soon as possible. This we have done. The bank could have merely been a fund or a facility, as has been suggested – that is a fund set up for the purpose – or it could have been a genuine bank. A
bank will have greater autonomy, a greater capacity to intervene in the private sector and greater flexibility, and, most importantly, it will be in a better position to perform an education role, to get the leaders of the countries of the southern Mediterranean to work together with our people. We therefore decided on a bank, but we do share your concern, Mr Poettering, the concern of everybody here and in the Member States, not to create another minor bank and further bureaucracy when there is a European Investment Bank which is already dealing – with extraordinary success – with EUR 9 billion of investments in the southern Mediterranean. I would inform you that there have been no cases of default on payment, except with regard to the investments made in Gaza, and you will understand why that might be the case there. We want to capitalise on this experience and so the Commission has proposed a bank. However, the major shareholders in the bank will be the European Investment Bank, the Commission, the share-holding countries and, most importantly, the countries of the southern Mediterranean. Although these countries will, of course, start off with a fairly small share, their role in the bank itself will increase with time.
With regard to the last point, I do not feel the Commission needs to give Parliament any explanation of how it is dealing with the matter. It has fulfilled its obligations and mandates consistently and complied with the need to give early warnings where the figures showed that this was necessary. We have not carried out any special assessments. We have complied with our primary obligation, which is to fulfil our mandates, and will continue to do so in the future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples