Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-17-Speech-3-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041117.3.3-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me pleasure to be able to report to you on the European Council that was held on 4 and 5 November, and which was a productive meeting.
Last week, a ministerial conference was held, at which the subject of integration was discussed at length. Of course we immediately applied the existing operational instruments over the past week. In addition, the Justice and Home Affairs ministers have asked to discuss the events in the Netherlands and to deliberate on European aspects of these with their colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council next Friday.
Let me now return to my role of President-in-Office of the European Council and to the actual topic of this debate. The European Council laid down the Hague Programme on 5 November. The programme outlines our cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice for the next five years.
Moreover, the Hague Programme is the first comprehensive package of measures to have been the subject of negotiation involving 25 Member States. That illustrates that in an enlarged Union, we can also reach agreement about important, complex issues, and that bodes well for the future.
In a Europe with no internal borders, we have to join forces in order to tackle problems such as organised crime, terrorism and human trafficking. In addition, we must work closely together in the fields of asylum and immigration. After all, asylum seekers and immigrants are entitled to know where they stand in Europe.
The Hague Programme builds on that of Tampere, which, in 1999, was the first programme to formulate cooperation in this area. It is based on Member State contributions, the Commission evaluation of Tampere and the European Parliament’s recommendation of 14 October of this year, particularly in respect of decision-making methods.
The Hague Programme gives important new impulses. Loopholes in national systems are being closed, as a result of which phenomena such as cross-border crime will be given far fewer opportunities. Closer attention will be paid to the proper implementation of the measures taken, and the effectiveness thereof will be scrutinised on a regular basis.
What does the Hague Programme specifically mean?
The Union will make it easier for police, justice and intelligence services of the Member States to exchange information on the basis of the principle of availability of information.
With regard to terrorism, it has been agreed that Member States will go further than maintaining their own security; they will also extend their vista to the entire territory of the EU. Institutions such as Europol and Eurojust will be given a central role in fighting crime.
We will continue to work hard on a European legal area, in which it is no longer possible to escape one’s sentence by moving to another EU Member State.
Central to that meeting were areas that are of major importance to the public, such as the economy, and the area of freedom, security and justice.
Alongside this, we will work towards a common asylum system by 2010, in which the same procedures will be followed in all countries. We want a single system that is humane, but also unambiguous, so that ‘asylum hopping’ will become a thing of the past.
Illegal immigration will also be tackled more effectively. This involves a common repatriation policy and better border control.
We are now working on the basic principles for integration which will, if possible, be laid down during the Dutch Presidency. A start was made on this during an informal ministerial conference in Groningen.
Another point I should like to mention in particular, is the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting and of codecision in the fields of asylum and immigration, something upon which you insisted in your recommendation of 14 November. We will comply with your request by making the Union more decisive and democratic in this respect. This will be effective on 1 April 2005. Although there were compelling requests among a few Member States to make various allowances, eventually, these remained restricted to the exception of legal immigration.
All in all, it is an ambitious and realistic programme, in respect of which the European Commission will be presenting an action plan next year. The separate legislative proposals contained therein will be submitted to you under the consultation and codecision procedure. I am particularly pleased that agreement has now been reached among the Member States about the objectives and the way in which we want to achieve these.
A safer Europe for free citizens whose constitutional rights are protected effectively. That is what this is all about.
I would now like to turn to the other important topic of the latest European Council, namely the European economy, in other words the preparation of the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy.
The year 2004 is marked by a slight recovery in the European economy. That recovery, however, is not a matter of course. In order to safeguard our European social model, we will need to make further adjustments.
The main feat of the Kok report is that it clearly demonstrates the relevance, if not, necessity, of the Lisbon strategy. The key objective of the strategy is still very much alive. There is no alternative.
The world around us is changing because in addition to the US, there are economies, including China and India, which not only compete in terms of labour costs, but also increasingly so in terms of quality and innovation. Europe itself is changing too, though: the population is ageing, with all the consequences that this entails for labour participation and tenability of pension schemes and health care.
We also discussed the issue of ‘Communicating Europe’
namely improving communication and interaction between politicians and citizens across Europe. Finally, we debated a number of topical external issues, including Iraq.
Despite this, the road ahead is clear: only by facing the challenge of the future can we retain the achievements of today. Knowledge, innovation and competitiveness must be the pillars underlying the adaptability of the European economy. Europe must develop its strengths further. Founded on a broad-based and highly-qualified population, flexible labour markets, activating social systems and innovative ecology, Europe will be able to meet the global challenge.
The Kok report thus clearly demonstrates that the Lisbon strategy must be pursued with force. Progress has been made on a number of scores: in the fields of labour participation, the internal market and the dissemination of ICT and the Internet in schools, universities, governments and households. We should not fool ourselves, though. At the same time, Mr Kok has indicated that the efforts, particularly by the Member States themselves, have to be stepped up. If not, we will assuredly not achieve the objectives.
It is this very process, where structural change is being carried out while retaining the public support base, which was the topic of a very lively discussion between myself and my colleagues during the past European Council. There was an exchange of practical experience, and future prospects were outlined. It was a sound discussion, particularly because the Kok report refers to the Member States themselves.
What struck me during that informative discussion was the unanimity about the need for reforms and about the need for good communication about this with the public and civil society.
In addition, the Heads of Government were unanimous in their willingness to take upon themselves political responsibility for the Lisbon strategy at European level, but also at home, in their own countries. It was gratifying in that respect that the future President of the new European Commission, Mr Barroso, also confirmed that he considers the Lisbon strategy to be at the centre of his policy and he personally will take responsibility for this in the Commission.
I have discussed the roles which the European Council, the Commission and the Member States must play. However, the Kok report also addressed the European Parliament directly, which should have greater involvement in this strategy. For example, it contains a suggestion for you to set up a permanent parliamentary committee that focuses on the Lisbon strategy and growth and employment. I am, naturally, interested to find out how you will act upon this recommendation.
Mr President, I should now like to turn to another topic, one which you yourself have discussed with us, namely that of ‘Communicating Europe’. The awareness that we need to communicate more effectively with the public about what Europe is and what it is doing requires constant attention. I see it as positive that future presidencies have indicated that they will be continuing the discussions on this subject.
The ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is an important occasion to further improve communication with the public. The citizens of Europe share essential values and it is up to the politicians, you and I, to convey the European project. Creating a truly open debate requires teamwork between the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission. I therefore welcome the intention of the future President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, to entrust a Vice-President with the portfolio of communication. We are looking forward to the announced communication strategy which will be tabled even before the European Council of June.
I have now come to the areas of external policy that have been the subject of discussion. First of all, Iraq. The European Council managed to reach agreement about a package of support measures for Iraq in the short term. We presented this package to the Iraqi Prime Minister, Mr Allawi, who we had invited especially for the occasion, during a lunch meeting on 5 November. Moreover, we then offered Iraq scope for cooperation and dialogue for the long term. Mr Allawi thanked us for the support for the Iraqi reconstruction process. In this process, the elections play an important role. I therefore set great store by Prime Minister Allawi’s communication that, despite persistent security problems, these elections will be taking place in January at the latest.
Our meeting with Mr Allawi and the aid package we presented to him demonstrate that the European Union is willing and able to play a greater role in granting concrete support to the political and economic reconstruction process in Iraq. Moreover, a similar signal of unanimity has been given within the Union with regard to Iraq.
Recent developments in my own country give me no choice but to start with the topic of freedom, security and justice. Those developments illustrate in an unpleasant but powerful manner that a further step in cooperation in those areas is indispensable.
A second item of external policy on which the European Council expressed a view is Iran. Let there be no mistake: we want complete and permanent suspension of all enrichment and improvement activities by Iran on a voluntary basis. Only then can the European Union offer Iran a prospect of discussions about long-term cooperation which will benefit both the European Union and Iran. Although the agreement that was reached with Teheran at the weekend is a step in the right direction, we should satisfy ourselves first that the suspension by the International Atomic Energy Agency can be determined promptly. If that attempt fails too, then we seem to have no choice but to resort to the UN Security Council.
This brings me to the Middle East, where there seems to be another window of opportunity for the peace process. It is to be hoped that the Israeli decision to withdraw from the Gaza Strip will offer a new opportunity for carrying out the roadmap. The European Council has tried to cash in on this. At the proposal of Javier Solana, we have now drawn up a short-term action programme to support the Palestinians in the areas of security, reforms, elections and economic development. Needless to say, we need cooperation from both the Palestinians and the Israelis for this programme to be successful. Although, at the moment, there is mourning for the death of President Arafat, I hope that the Palestinian Authority will, when a new president is elected in January, make a new start promptly and decisively.
The situation in Sudan remains extremely difficult. The European Council has urged the Government of Sudan and all other parties to meet the international requirements. In this respect, we have an obvious stick, namely the possibility of instituting sanctions, if need be. If that is what it takes, that is what we will do.
Three weeks ago, the European Parliament held a debate with the Council about Ukraine. I hope that the message which the European Council sent is being properly understood by the Ukrainian authorities. The second round of the presidential elections is taking place this Sunday. This round will need to be more democratic than the first one. If not, we will need to consider the implications we want to attach to this.
As is evident from the conclusions, the European Council has not discussed the Union’s enlargement. We will do this in December. We will then know the outcome of the debate which Parliament will devote to this. The decisions we are facing regarding the four candidate countries can change the Union drastically. A clear, positive and future-oriented view of Parliament is crucial in order to face the decision-making and implementation of the decisions with confidence. I hope that that will be the result on 2 December.
Let me finally say a few words about Parliament itself and about the Commission.
First of all, I share your wish to resolve the long-standing issue of the statute of the Members of this Parliament. Transparent and unequivocal agreements about the salary and other working conditions of the Members of your House avoid perceptions which undermine confidence in the institutions and the Union as a whole. In the next few weeks, the presidency, in the form of the European Affairs Minister, Mr Nicolaï, will be examining the possibilities that exist in order to reach agreement on this issue that has remained unresolved for far too long. Mr President, you too will be consulted in this matter in the next few days.
Strictly speaking, the outcome of the debate which this Parliament held three weeks ago about the proposed Commission was not on the agenda of the European Council. Mr President, you were right to pay attention to it in your contribution to the European Council nevertheless. I should like to do the same now.
The Union did not end up in crisis because of this debate; on the contrary, it drew strength from it. In the Treaty, Parliament has been assigned an important role in the appointment of the Commission. Parliament has every right to reject the proposed Commission. Had Parliament done so as a result of a vote, then that would have been an expression of political self-awareness.
Similarly, it is good that Mr Barroso, the President-designate, has drawn the political lessons he needed to draw from the debate. He has been able to adjust his Commission with a view to receiving the broadest possible support in this Parliament. In this way, he is laying a strong foundation for cooperation between Parliament and the Commission.
I am very indebted to you, Mr President, for the words of support and solidarity which you spoke to the Dutch Government and the entire Dutch community on 15 November. Allow me to react to those words in my national capacity.
From the Council’s point of view, the outcome is also positive. The Council wants to set to work with Parliament and the Commission. We are facing important issues and important choices. I have high hopes that tomorrow, the European Parliament will express its confidence in the Commission, and we will be able to roll up our sleeves thereafter.
The Netherlands is proud of its diversity. Since the Second World War, we have received large groups of people from many countries – some because they were persecuted, others because they could build a better future with us and were welcome reinforcements on our labour market. The contribution of those people in terms of quality of our society is immense and is appreciated.
Today, they, and their relatives, belong among us, and that ‘belonging’ requires consideration and effort from both parties. Integration is a complex issue that touches on identity, standards and values, as well as getting to know and understand each other. At the same time, integration also requires respect and compliance with the fundamental rules of our society: freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, and respect for the democratic rule of law, which must offer individuals the protection to which they are entitled.
Last time I had the good fortune of addressing this Parliament, I said, referring to the prospect of Turkey’s accession to the Union, that Islam or religion are not the issue. I would repeat that today. In our European society, there is every chance that people with different beliefs can live alongside, and with, each other. What is not acceptable is to use religion as an excuse to attack people, schools, mosques or churches. That is what all of us, across Europe, have to fight with conviction and decisiveness.
Mr President, in your expression of support last Monday, you drew attention to the significance of recent events in the Netherlands for the whole of European society, and in that I agree with you. The Netherlands is convinced that we must work together more effectively in fighting terrorism. The fierce reactions and counter-reactions in the wake of the killing of Mr Van Gogh once again demonstrated that there is tension in the make-up of our society. In Europe too, we have to learn from each other in terms of integrating minorities. I will presently examine in more detail the multi-annual programme for Justice and Home Affairs, the Hague Programme, that provides for a deepening in both areas."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples