Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.20.3-217"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, if someone in Parliament wanted to adopt a good cop, bad cop approach towards the Commission and the Council, it would be difficult to find a better way of doing this than to schedule speeches by Mr Mitchell and myself one after the other.
When the European Commission presented its package in 2004, one thing was uncontroversial and universally praised, and that was simplification. Simplification is a great virtue of the whole package presented in 2004, as it makes it easier for parties from outside the EU to use our legal bases for external aid. However, Parliament clearly believes that this simplification cannot be implemented at the cost of restricting the political aims of our external aid, and neither can it be implemented at the cost of Parliament’s monitoring powers. This is why 124 amendments appeared in my report for the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I would like to thank the people responsible in the political groups for their work and dedication. They include Mr Tannock, Mrs Morgantini, Mrs Napoletano, Mr Belder and Mr Väyrynen. Without the involvement of the secretariat of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and also of the political group to which I belong, it would not have been possible for us to have such a clear negotiating position today. Furthermore, without the enormous commitment and dedication of the Austrian Presidency headed by Ambassador Woschnagg, without the involvement of Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and without the involvement of Mr Brok, who leads our negotiating team as the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, we would not realistically be able today to think about accepting this instrument at first reading, something that is extremely important. We must remember that at the end of the year our current legal basis, in the form of MEDA and TACIS, the main instruments of neighbourhood and partnership aid, will expire. We should give our external partners as much time as possible to prepare for this enormous and important change with regard to the legal basis for the provision of external aid.
In the course of 18 months of parliamentary work, we have made significant progress. First of all, we have broadened the palette of political aims for the funding instruments of the Neighbourhood and Partnership Policy and we have introduced clauses making the provision of aid dependent on respect for human rights and democratic standards. We have introduced changes which will allow the Neighbourhood Policy to be applied to countries such as Belarus which avoid cooperation with the European Union. We have safeguarded the role of the EEA and of Switzerland in the performance of tasks associated with the Neighbourhood Policy, and made it possible for these countries to participate in the implementation of the Neighbourhood Policy in the European Union. In spite of what I would call the governmental character of the Neighbourhood Policy, we have increased the role of non-governmental organisations.
Having heard Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and Mr Winkler’s speeches, we could say today that, thanks to the interinstitutional agreements, we have a guarantee that a new, separate human rights and democracy instrument will be introduced. This instrument will be flexible enough to achieve our aims in a legally and politically hostile environment. As we all know, we face such hostile situations fairly frequently.
Today everything points towards our ability to achieve a compromise on this most important matter, namely the European Parliament’s monitoring role, in terms of both planning and implementing the Neighbourhood Policy. Of course, I am aware that any compromise is uneasy, as this one is for Parliament. However, I will recommend that it be accepted, as everyone who takes part in a compromise has to bear in mind that it will give us the satisfaction of having brought a great process to a close, but that it will also be a slightly uneasy compromise. I am sure that this compromise does not sit easily with any of us, but I am certain that the most important feeling here is that of satisfaction at having been able to reach an understanding.
I hope that this agreement will be reached before the summer break and, more importantly, before the end of the Austrian Presidency. The Austrian Presidency has put a lot of hard work into this matter, and they deserve credit for their work. I hardly need to add that our southern and eastern neighbours are eagerly awaiting the completion of our work. Once again, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the completion of this work."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples