Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-076"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.4.2-076"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make a few brief comments on some of the positions held by the various groups and certain honourable Members.
Nothing is therefore to be gained from failing to confront these problems. And as has been demonstrated recently, nothing is to be gained from confronting them with demagoguery. And neither do I believe that anything is to be gained from holding sterile debates on whether Europe should be a fortress or not. Europe must be possible and Europe has a capacity for reception which must be based on the law and on this basis we will undoubtedly create a positive immigration policy which is to everybody’s advantage.
Secondly, on this point relating to terrorism, certain very significant aspects have been implemented which have been progressing in Europe for years and in particular since 11 September 2001. I would like to say on this issue, ladies and gentlemen, that there can be no apology for any terrorist act, nor support for any terrorist act, and even less resignation in the face of any terrorist act. Terrorism and terrorists do not only include those who belong to an operative unit carrying out murders and attacks. Those who support, shelter, assist or fund terrorists also form part of the terrorist organisation …
… and are just as responsible for the actions of the terrorist organisation. I hope there is no European institution or institution in any Member State of the European Union that gives shelter or assistance to those who protect, fund or support terrorists. Because the only outcome of terrorism, in this regard, is moral, political and operational disaster. Winston Churchill said that no fate is destined to inevitably befall us, except where we do nothing to prevent it. Well I would like to say that what we must prevent at all times is allowing terrorists to be sheltered within institutions so that they can continue to commit crimes or continue to fund or support crimes in any part of the European Union or in any country of the European Union.
In relation to the economy, I would like to say that the fundamental element and objective, as you know, is full employment. That is our objective, to achieve full employment. Practically every country in the European Union is currently undergoing social and labour reforms in order to try to come closer to full employment. It is precisely those countries with more unemployment problems that must work harder to implement these reforms. Full employment in Europe involves just two approaches: one is the stability pact, the foundation for sustainable and stable growth in Europe, and the other is the policy of reforms aimed at a more open, competitive and productive area. We cannot weaken the stability pact or fail to make reforms; we must instead maintain the stability pact and undertake reforms. In this way we will stimulate growth, we will increase competition and, above all, we will help to fulfil our objective, which is to have the greatest possible number of people working in Europe. If we weaken the stability pact and fail to promote reforms, however, we will not be able to fully implement Europe’s full employment policies.
My third consideration relates to enlargement. I would firstly like to clarify something: my hope and my desire is that the Nice timetable will be complied with. The Nice timetable expires at the end of 2002. We are therefore a good way through the Nice timetable. Secondly: the common positions on regional policy, institutional policy, the financial framework and agricultural policy have been adopted. Therefore, the mandate received by the Presidency to establish common policies has been carried out. Within the common policy, the common position on agriculture, we still need to determine the financial aspect, and this will happen in November. This has been the case because an agreement and a difficult consensus were achieved at the Seville European Council, where the only danger was that an agreement would not be reached and enlargement would be at risk. Therefore, in November we will be able to take decisions and in December we will have fulfilled the Nice timetable.
What we have to do is apply the Community acquis and not call other policies into question: in other words to mix up the financial perspectives and Agenda 2000 – which is valid until 2006. To mix up the financial perspectives with enlargement is a mistake, in my opinion. And to mix up policy reforms with enlargement is another mistake. And to mix up all three things would lead to enlargement not taking place and that, of course, is not what the Spanish Presidency wants to promote.
With regard to external issues, I would like to say that over these months a common position has been established for Johannesburg. With regard to this common position it is essential that we take care not to re-open the Doha agreement or the Monterrey agreement, which took us so long to reach.
I would firstly like to say that, as you all know, the task of the presidencies is essentially to promote measures, to promote reforms, to introduce initiatives and above all to shape and seek agreements which allow things to move forward, and this reflects our European tradition and also the form of the debates in the European Council.
With regard to the reform of the Council, I would like to say that decisions have been taken which do not imply a reform of the Treaties. Reform of the Treaties was not within the reach of the European Council, and that is what has led to these considerations. Reforms which do not involve a modification of the Treaties do, however, represent reasonable progress. With regard to the controversial debate on the presidencies, that debate is under way and many different views will be expressed. If someone says that they are not in favour of a six-month presidency or of a presidency of three, four or five years, they must say what they are in favour of, because the European Councils must be presided over in some way: six months, one year or two years, but the European presidencies must be organised in some way. Unless what is proposed is to put an end to the presidencies and the European Council, something of which I personally am not in favour.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have given presentations to this House on three occasions and I have appeared here on three occasions. My hope and desire is that subsequent presidencies of the European Council will also fulfil this task of appearing before the House to give an assessment of the European Councils. We now have very important challenges – relating to institutions, enlargement, security, defence and economics – in our own countries and in the European Union. We will continue to contribute to the ongoing progress of the European Union so that we can effectively fulfil our objectives and our ambitions. That is why, after these six months of work, we can be reasonably satisfied, and this will provide us with the best basis for our future expectations.
With regard to the issues raised in relation to the area of freedom, security and justice and those presented to us today in relation to immigration policy, I would like to point out that what was implemented in Seville was the general plan, the general strategy approved at the Tampere European Council. I am grateful for all the comments made in this regard but at the same time I would like to point out that in 1998 the then Austrian Chancellor, Viktor Klima, commissioned certain prime ministers, under the Austrian Presidency, to develop and present drafts of work to be carried out. And I, on behalf of Spain, had the honour of being commissioned to work on all the issues relating to the third pillar of the Union.
The Tampere Council was established on the basis of the work carried out and approved at the informal European Council of Pörtschach. And Tampere establishes a general framework for the third pillar, for the first time, which naturally needs to be implemented in accordance with new circumstances and with the dynamic of the process established in Tampere. That is what was done in Seville, as laid out from the outset in the programme of the Spanish Presidency.
I would like to say in this regard that we must work on the basis of four elements within such a complex field as immigration.
Firstly, legality. Immigration in our countries must be based on legality. That is necessary, just as immigration is necessary; it is essential to the integration of immigrants into our societies; it is essential to the organisation of migratory flows which can only be based on legality; and it is extremely advisable for the maintenance of co-existence in all of our societies and countries. To believe that we can create an immigration policy without distinguishing between the legal and the illegal, with a cry of ‘papers for all’, would I believe be a mistake and would mean opting for conflict, for non-integration and for demagoguery.
Just as this is the case from a legal point of view, we are also absolutely obliged to combat illegal immigration. We cannot seriously say in our societies that it does not matter whether an immigrant is legal or illegal because, at the end of the day, the person who really loses out is the one who has been through all the legal procedures to seek shelter and work in a country. And there are mafias who are dedicated to human trafficking and illegal immigration, which is a very profitable business for those mafias and furthermore is connected to other crimes, such as drug-trafficking. Therefore, the implementation of an action plan against illegal immigration is one of the most important elements to have been carried out in Seville and naturally it is one of new elements to have been implemented during the Spanish Presidency.
I sincerely believe, ladies and gentlemen, that common sense demands that we pay very special attention to the control of external borders and gradually improve that control until, on a Community level, we find a formula which we believe best guarantees our effectiveness, especially within the context of European enlargement. We have fundamental obligations to defend, control and monitor our external borders and we have fundamental obligations to be much more efficient through the use of common visas, groups of experts, security forces, working groups, special forces. We have many more obligations, especially – as I have said – within the context of enlargement.
Finally, there is a significant innovation within the field of immigration, which is to incorporate it into the European Union’s cooperation policy. It is the first time this has happened, but all the agreements signed by the European Union with any country, from this point on, must include an immigration clause, just as they have clauses relating to the fight against terrorism and the defence of human rights. All agreements signed by the European Union from now on will contain a clause relating to commitments in the fight against illegal immigration. We are not talking about a controversial debate on any particular type of sanction. We are talking about considering the issue and saying the following: what happens when a country systematically refuses to comply with the agreements on the readmission of illegal immigrants? What happens when cooperation on technical resources in favour of one country are used not to combat illegal immigration but to favour illegal immigration? Can we seriously say that in this event the European Union must act as if nothing had happened? Are we going to continue to give technical or financial resources to countries that use them to favour and not to counteract illegal immigration? Ladies and gentlemen, I seriously believe that this is not a coherent, correct or serious position. It is precisely for this reason that I believe the Union should reserve its right to act accordingly if necessary."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples