Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-07-21-Speech-3-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040721.4.3-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, let us begin by once again expressing our thanks and appreciation to Commission President Prodi and his Commissioners. You have rightly pointed out that much has been achieved over the last few years: the euro, enlargement, the new Constitutional Treaty and, in this, the Commission too has played an important part. For this, very many thanks, and I look forward to working with you until the inauguration of the new Commission. You have heard words of appreciation, from Mr Poettering for example, who is also proposing to upgrade you where the team photograph of the European Council is concerned – the same goes for the President of the European Parliament for that matter. It seems a good idea to me to take another closer look at this. I would also like to thank the speakers for their contributions. Thank you for the support you have expressed for the Netherlands Presidency, but also thank you for your critical observations.
May I remind you of Mr Kok’s report, the first Kok report of the employment task force, the ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’ report. In my view a good connection is made in that report between dynamism in Europe and social content and, in preparation for the discussion here and in preparation for our work, I have this week also had discussions with the representatives of the European trade union movement. I asked them whether they can identify with that first Kok report, the report of the employment task force, and I had a positive response to the content of this report from the Secretary-General of the European trade union movement. It seems to me that we could go a long way with the content of this report.
My third point is sustainability. When I spoke earlier, I referred to the importance of concern for the environment. This too is part of the Lisbon agenda; and, if we are talking about strengthening the economy, then, Mr van den Berg, this includes doing justice to reduction of the administrative burden. We all know that it is sometimes difficult to be innovative and to be successful even as a company. We may then do very well to take a look at this administrative burden. I am looking forward to a good debate with you about this very important subject, because we can talk about a treaty, we can talk about the citizen, but it is in the interest of this citizen that there are more jobs in Europe, that there are opportunities for our children and grandchildren and that, in 30 or 40 years, Europe will still be in a strong position, on the global stage as well. It is indeed a combination of growth, of social cohesion and of sustainability.
A second point, when it comes to Europe’s focus upon the future, concerns the Justice and Home Affairs Council agenda: doing justice to the constitutional state in Europe, responding to security and fighting terrorism. Mr Schulz has rightly said ‘make sure that the institutions are in order’. In this context you referred specifically to the director of Europol. Last Monday it was decided that the procedure should be restarted, and there is a commitment from all the Member States that, precisely because of the arguments you mentioned, a new director should be appointed during the Netherlands Presidency. You are quite right: if you are working on security, then the institutions have to be in order.
Of course it goes further when we talk about the Justice and Home Affairs Council agenda. There will have to be a follow-up to the Tampere process. We shall, for example, have to ensure that the discussion of asylum and migration can be moved forward. Mention has been made of whether we should not have more QMV, majority decision-making, and I think that it is good to say again that the general aspiration is of course towards QMV. However, we are of course dependent on the Member States and when there is more room for manoeuvre, then this area too will become easier. I have listened carefully to you, to Mrs Buitenweg for example, who is critical of a directive relating to asylum. We were aware of your point of view, and here you have raised it once more in no uncertain terms. The point now is that there is a directive requiring asylum seekers to have a right to an actual legal remedy. Moreover, the question of whether an appeal must have standard suspensive effect is left to the Member States, as you know. How does that happen, because the different legal systems vary enormously? Which is why this formula has been chosen. If, moreover, there is no question of a standard suspensive effect of an appeal, then the directive requires that the Member States determine when an asylum seeker can ask for suspensive effect. With regard to the question of whether it is possible first to expel asylum seekers and only then to allow them to lodge an appeal, I would say the following: the directive states that all regulations must be in conformity with international law, including the European Human Rights Treaty. The standards that are contained therein and in the jurisprudence of the Court will therefore have to be observed.
Then it is good to refer to another point, the point about the constitutional state, and in this context Mr Schulz has referred to Guantanamo Bay. This subject has your interest and rightly so. The European Union has always demonstrated its concern about the situation in Guantanamo Bay and, on several occasions and at several levels in its contacts with the United States, has spoken out in favour of the treatment of the detainees meeting the standards of the Geneva Conventions and human rights. Just last week there was consultation at official level between the European Union and the United States in which the US explained the setting up of combatant status review tribunals following the recent judgments of the American Supreme Court. The EU representatives passed on the concerns that remain on the European side, including those relating to the creation of a new category of detainees, the so-called hostile combatants. You are aware of this. In its contacts with the United States, the Netherlands Presidency will keep seeking attention for the concerns that exist regarding the status and treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
Finally, I come to my last point, and you have said it clearly, it is about the Europe of the citizen. How does the citizen experience Europe? What does Europe mean for welfare, for the prosperity of citizens? I then discern two voices. One voice says: we see mistrust in the citizen, there is euroscepticism. Is there sufficient support in the population, for the implementation of the Lisbon strategy for example? That was one sign, the critical comment. On the other hand there are also voices – Mr Eurlings’ was a very clear one – in favour of an efficient Union with the ability to take action, and I would like to underline his words; if we want Europe to mean something to the citizen, then we must make progress in the areas of security, asylum issues, the economy, subjects that must be taken up with vigour, and I believe that you gain the trust of the citizen when Europe is a living force that can operate with authority and that contributes to the resolution of issues that concern the citizen. That is what it is all about.
What appealed to me in the words of Mr Poettering was that he said let us also have time for the psychological dimension, because we have a Europe of 25, and Member States and people must be able to identify with the other Europe, and it is good to bring this psychological side closer from time to time, because we are so accustomed to talking in terms of what does Europe cost me, what does Europe do for me, how are the finances doing? However, let us also have time for the question of what makes us Europeans? What is the psychological side of it all? What are the values in Europe that bind us? Often we have far too little time for this. I noticed in 2002 on the eve of enlargement that there was a kind of enthusiasm about us becoming one again and, afterwards, we were talking worldwide about Iraq and difficult issues, but let us ensure that the European fire lives in people, that Europe is not something abstract, something belonging to bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg or even to ourselves, but that it is something that lives in the hearts and minds of people. In my view that will also be the attitude if you talk about values in Europe. We shall take initiatives on this point. Freedom, solidarity and respect.
You are dedicating yourselves to the community of values of the twenty-first century and, as President of the European Council, I am very conscious that, when it comes to progress in the area of the fight against terrorism, a powerful implementation of the Lisbon strategy, having time for the follow-up to Tampere and all those other subjects, we can only be successful when we have a high level of cooperation between your Parliament, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council, and therefore I am so delighted with the contributions you have made this morning and this afternoon, not only your observations of support, but also your critical observations. I have listened carefully to the critical observations; they were probing, and we shall take them into account in our Presidency. If we are having a discussion here, it is not for its own sake or because we are working simply as politicians. We are doing all this with a view to the interests of citizens. This is what it is all about, and this is what we are dedicating ourselves to.
When I spoke earlier, I said that criticism is not at all bad, it is part and parcel of democracy. Far more serious is indifference, and today I have seen no indifference at all, and that means that we are engaged on the same thing here today and for that I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Then Mr Watson told us that it is indeed a short Presidency – three-and-a-half months in fact – in part because of the summer recess. This means that we must work effectively during our Presidency, and of course it also means that, for this reason, we are glad to be working with you, for example as regards progress in the legislative process. On behalf of the Minister of European Affairs, I should also like to appeal to you to cooperate as much as you can on this legislative process.
Then you said that you have just under ten minutes. I have had 26 speakers, which would work out at around 23 seconds per speaker. It seems better to me to combine the subjects somewhat, and I would like to do this with reference to three subjects that you also mentioned. I believe that there are three important things for the Europe of the future. First of all, credibility and fair play, secondly, being forward looking and thirdly, having time for the citizens of Europe.
Firstly, something about the subject of credibility and fair play: let us begin with the discussions of the Copenhagen criteria. If criteria have been laid down, then they must be taken seriously. This is true for a country such as Romania. I have spoken to Prime Minister Nastase about this. It is their move, and they will have to change their legislation and other things. The same credibility and fair play must characterise the debate about Turkey. I have listened carefully to you. There are different views in the European Parliament, but at the moment I would like to say: let us pay heed to consistency in decision-making and procedures. The term ‘
’ has been mentioned here, and it is all about an honest process in which we are strict in the verification of the criteria, but at the same time do not change the rules during the game. This means, moreover, that we shall listen with interest to the findings of the European Commission when the report on Turkey is published at the beginning of October and this will also set the tone for the decision-making in December. The Netherlands Presidency is working on a decision so that, in a few years, people will be able to say: it was a tenable decision and it was the right decision.
Again where credibility and fair play are concerned, a brief word about the Stability Pact. Many of you have spoken about this as well. As far as the Presidency is concerned, the Stability Pact is not simply a matter of a few criteria, it is about the goals that are sought with them, and I have, for example, heard that there has been talk of the future reliable funding of pensions; it is important to look at the objectives behind the Pact again and, partly for this reason, a declaration about the Stability Pact has been attached to the recently agreed Constitutional Treaty that once again confirms that it is a ‘rule-based system’ and that we must also take these criteria seriously. The debates will of course continue; the Commission is working on it, and we shall also be discussing it further at the level of Ecofin, and the debate about this will undoubtedly continue with you too. It is of course important that we take the rules seriously precisely in view of the credibility of Europe.
A third point concerns the ratification of Europe’s Constitutional Treaty. Many of you have spoken about the referendums to be held, the debates that will take place. Let me first consider what Mr Blokland has said. He says: are we not running too far ahead of the new constitution? I do not think that we can run ahead of it to the extent that no decisions are being taken that have a legal basis in the constitution. That means that you cannot run ahead of it, out of respect for the ratification process. On the other hand we can also see that 25 governments have ranged themselves behind the constitution, and the constitution is going to be signed in Rome on 29 October. That too is a political fact; we are going to have to take account of the ambitions in the constitution in our planning. This is true for example of the discussion of public access – Mrs Buitenweg spoke about this. It is of course true that matters will be settled once there is a new treaty, but we can see what – even running ahead of it – we ought to be able to do. There has also been some discussion of whether we should not work on a referendum on a single day. Moreover, I understand this wish. This point has been raised regularly by Austria too. I should, however, refer to the fact that the constitutional traditions are different. The position of a referendum is not the same in each Member State. For this reason too it will not, I think, be possible to organise everything on one day, simply on the grounds of the different constitutional traditions.
On the other hand, it is important that we have time for coordination, for a proper debate and, in that context too, there will be discussions with one another about it in connection with RASEP.
Where credibility and fair play are concerned, another brief word about the financial perspectives. We all know that this is a sensitive subject, with major differences of opinion. Reference has been made to a letter about the 1%. I am not standing here as the Dutch Prime Minister. I am standing here as the President of the European Council, who is responsible for a fair process in which the different arguments are exchanged. A process that must be characterised by openness and transparency. A process that will also have to be characterised by good contacts with your Parliament. I know that you appreciate the intensive involvement of Parliament and, as part of the conciliation, agreements were made on 16 July about contacts between the Presidency and the European Parliament. I think that there is a need to have an honest debate about posteriority and about priorities, about the question of how we could also do things differently in Europe, and I think that we should also heed the observation from Flanders, ‘penny-wise and pound-foolish’. I have listened carefully to you. On the other hand, we must also always see that we apply the funds as best we can, are efficient and that we also see how, sometimes with the same money, we can achieve more. All these elements must have their place in an honest and open debate.
I now come to my second point: being forward looking. For I have so clearly sensed in your contributions that you are saying ‘let us have time for the Europe of the twenty-first century, time for the future’. Many speakers have spoken about the importance of the European economy and the strengthening of the economic structure and, in that context, you have asked for a lot of attention for the Lisbon process. Mrs In 't Veld for example has raised this in no uncertain terms. It is good to say again that the Lisbon process will have to be characterised by three elements: it is about growth and about the strengthening of technology, of knowledge and of innovation. Secondly, it must be about social cohesion, the social cohesion of which Mr Wurtz, Mr Poettering, Mr Schulz and others have spoken. I have also nearly already had a debate with Mr van den Berg, my esteemed countryman, who made a number of critical remarks. Moreover, after Mr Schulz had already said let us have time for social cohesion, you said again ‘how does that fit in with this agenda’?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples