Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-18-Speech-1-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061218.6.1-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to be here once again to talk with you in my capacity as President of the European Council. A meeting of the European Council during Finland’s Presidency was held in Brussels on 14 and 15 December. My purpose now is to report to you on its outcome. As Finland’s six-month Presidency of the Council draws to a close, I also want to tell you what we have done for our Union during our term.
On the basis of the discussions we can emphasise that the Western Balkans’ membership prospects are real. The region's future clearly lies in the EU. That is of fundamental importance to us.
At the same time, obviously, the Union’s enlargement policy must be respected. The counterweight to an open door policy is rigorous application of the conditions. There are no short cuts to EU membership. Membership is possible only when the membership criteria have been met.
It was very important that there was no discussion of limits to Union enlargement, as there is no place for them. We cannot set up artificial barriers to the Union. Our real borders are not to be found on the map but in values. The construction of Europe is work in progress while there are still democratic black holes like Belarus so close by, which is a blot on the European landscape. We do not need places like that in Europe anymore.
At the European Council, I gave an appraisal of the situation regarding the Constitutional Treaty. During our Presidency, we have had systematic discussions with all Member States concerning the Constitutional Treaty. I will not go into details regarding the individual Member States’ positions, as we are bound by the confidential nature of the talks, but I do want to give you the general picture the Presidency got of the situation during the course of the consultations.
The first thing to mention is the change in atmosphere that took place during our Presidency. When it started, people were still in a bit of a dream world. No one really wanted to give the Constitution active consideration. Now the Member States have started to think seriously about the future and many take the view that the Constitutional Treaty was actually a well thought-out and successful package. We are still in a dilemma, though: the Treaty cannot be put before the Member States that rejected it in exactly the same form as before, even though it remains a well-balanced package. Upsetting the balance would cause more problems than it would solve. For that reason there is broad consensus that restarting negotiations as if there had been no Treaty is not possible.
The institutional provisions in the Constitutional Treaty in particular are the result of long negotiations and deliberation. It is difficult to reopen talks without creating new problems. At the same time I want to say that my personal view is that picking the Treaty apart would be no more than an apparent solution at best. For example, we cannot separate Part I from Part III: the competences of the Union and of the Member States need to be clearly demarcated. Part II of the Constitutional Treaty, on the other hand, sets out the fundamental values on which the Union is based. I do not understand why they should be ignored.
For now, 16 Member States have ratified the Treaty and at the start of next year there will be 18 of us. This is not a question, however, that can be resolved by force of numbers. The Constitutional Treaty will not enter into force unless it is endorsed by all 27 Member States. It would seem only reasonable to try and find a solution before 2009 when the next European Parliament elections are held and a new Commission appointed.
The fact nevertheless remains that the Constitutional Treaty is still on hold and that soon we will be handing the baton on to Germany. We are looking to the German Presidency to take this difficult issue forward. At the same time, though, it is important that we use whatever practical means are available to us to push ahead with European cooperation. Justice and home affairs are one outstanding example of this. Our citizens expect concrete action to improve security and justice.
Justice and home affairs, however, is beset by a serious problem. The requirement of unanimity in police and criminal matters prevents genuine progress from being made in cooperation: cooperation which is important to our citizens. They are entitled to expect more effective collaboration in improving security and combating crime. At present, however, decisions on cooperation are either watered down or cannot be made at all, as we saw just recently with regard to the transfer of detainees. The requirement of unanimity is a barrier to justice and home affairs and hinders real progress.
Last Thursday at the European Council we offered President of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, our sincerest thanks, now that his duties are almost over. I would like to thank him here once again for his dedicated efforts for the good of Europe. Mr President, it has been a pleasure working with you. We have achieved many good results, for which I thank you sincerely. Your work has been much appreciated.
We have a procedure that would enhance decision-making on justice and home affairs, the
provided by Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union, which allows us to decide unanimously to switch to qualified-majority voting. The Finnish Presidency was very eager to explore this possibility but at the September meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Tampere it was evident that a number of Member States opposed it. This avenue has been closed to us, therefore.
That is why I welcome the fact that, in spite of everything, the European Council sent an unequivocal message that more effective decision-making on justice and home affairs is important, along with the principles set out in the Constitutional Treaty, and that means switching to qualified majority voting. This is a major breakthrough, which we are pleased with. Future Presidencies, furthermore, should honour this decision.
In this connection, I would say that, if there was one thing that I could change in the Union generally, with the experience of the EU Presidency behind me, it would be to increase substantially the number of decisions taken by qualified majority. It is without question the most effective, the fairest and indeed the best way of arriving at good decisions. The unanimity requirement does not serve European common interests in any but the most critical of matters.
The European Council held in-depth discussions on the Union's immigration policy. It is in a spirit of solidarity that we all remember the problems that the Mediterranean Member States faced in the summer. The Finnish Presidency actively addressed the challenges of illegal immigration and the matter was discussed at the extraordinary summit in Lahti. This time, at the December European Council, we agreed on a comprehensive approach to both legal and illegal migration and we acknowledged the complexity of the issue. Immigration is not primarily and only a question of better border controls. Equally crucial are developments in the countries of departure, transit issues and a controlled immigration policy, which the EU so badly needs on account of its own ageing population. Europe is not some remote island.
The European Council also endorsed the important results of the informal summit in Lahti. We all agree that Europe needs a more focused innovation policy. We cannot maintain our current levels of prosperity unless we are genuinely competitive in the future and cultivate our capacity for skills. A significant feature of the Finnish presidential term has been that innovation has been at the very centre of competition policy. Promoting innovation must be an integral part of the EU’s competition strategy. Now that the groundwork has been done, we expect the spring European Council to formulate some forward-looking innovation-policy guidelines.
Something else essential for the Union’s sustainable economic growth and our competitiveness is how we are to agree on common energy policy goals and engage in wide-ranging, global cooperation to manage climate change. These themes have attracted a growing amount of attention during the Finnish Presidency. At the same time they were among the most important areas of cooperation discussed this autumn with Russia, the United States and our Asian partners.
The European Council’s conclusions on energy and climate issues demonstrate that more consistent progress is now being made, as they point the Union to the path towards the spring summit during the German Presidency, at which these issues will be high on the agenda.
On Friday, I received some direct feedback from the press. They thought that this European Council was boring, that the decisions lacked drama and that there were no last-minute solutions hammered out in the dead of night. If it is dull for decisions to be taken in an orderly fashion and on schedule, then yes, I have to say that I am dull and proud of it. Europe needs tangible results, not contrived political drama.
(
)
I am convinced that a Europe of results, as Commission President Barrroso so often emphasises, is the best way to take the Union forward. We need practical solutions of benefit to our citizens. Only that way can we build the sort of legitimate structure on which major solutions like the Constitutional Treaty can rest.
Mr President, there are 13 days remaining of the Finnish Presidency. We will do our duty until the last minute. One important theme during our term has been to strengthen the unity of the Union. We will not cope in world affairs unless we can be more united in our external relations.
In the early days of Finland’s Presidency we experienced a serious crisis in the Middle East, culminating in a serious war-like situation in Lebanon. I am proud to say that the EU took a strong and united position on Lebanon, acted decisively to implement the resolutions passed by the UN Security Council and, most crucially, was able to mobilise troops, which was decisive for the success of a sufficiently strong UN operation in Lebanon. The summer in Lebanon was a testing time but the Union came through the crisis laudably. And I would like to say thank you here once again to all the Member States for the support which the Presidency received in trying to resolve this matter.
It is essential that we have a Union that is united and resolute in its external relations and that can use its wide range of instruments to work for a better world. Since enlargement the Union has moved into the leading position in the world on a number of counts and we must take full advantage of this. During our Presidency, we have also done a great deal to improve the coherence of development policy, for instance: an issue of primary importance to a significant global actor like the EU.
One of the priorities we set was to consolidate the EU's policy on Russia. Here too, the practical importance of a united policy is very much in evidence. At the informal summit in Lahti, we had a good discussion with the Russian President, Mr Putin, and the EU was able to speak with one voice to Russia. Russia is clearly an important partner for the EU. A glance at the map is enough to see that. Russia is important for the EU and we are bound together by many ties, but it is fair to say that there are a lot of developments in Russia that worry us. I am not persuaded that Russia is heading in the right direction. We need to see a firmer commitment to democracy, the rule of law and the market economy. We do not want Russia to go in an authoritarian direction. We are fully entitled to be concerned about developments in Russia.
Russia is an acid test of the EU’s unity. Finland would like to have reached agreement on starting negotiations on a new and comprehensive agreement with Russia. For reasons that are well known, that agreement has not been reached up till now. I think that the new agreement provides an excellent illustration of the problem we face. We need a strong joint agreement which incorporates the main basis for cooperation between us, values, and which provides a lasting foundation for trade and energy cooperation. If no common agreement is possible, a regrettable and short-sighted option is a network of bilateral agreements that would enable Russia to treat different Member States in different ways. Some will get good agreements, some will get bad ones, and some may get none at all. Yet it goes without saying that a united EU is such an important partner for Russia that it can, as one single entity, negotiate a decent agreement. Just how united is Europe if we are competing amongst ourselves to see who can get the best terms? That is not what European solidarity is about.
Presidencies start with big goals, but real life brings us all back down to earth. We have achieved a great deal but many crucial matters have been left unresolved. Finland worked hard for a decision on amending the Working Time Directive and I think we got pretty close. It was not enough, however. The problem has not gone away of course and I wish subsequent presidencies every success in finding a solution to this European issue.
I am rather sad that this is the last time that I will be representing the Finnish Presidency at a plenary session of Parliament. I will now have some splendid memories of good cooperation with Parliament and I would like to thank you all for the support you have given Finland in its endeavours.
I believe that Europe has a common future: a more united Europe where border fences will vanish. I am particularly pleased that we achieved a result on Schengen enlargement. That is the kind of practical progress that Europe’s citizens expect from us as decision-makers.
Once again I want to thank the European Parliament sincerely for its excellent show of cooperation.
Here I would also like to thank the European Parliament for all its support and the combined efforts that it has made. Together, we have achieved some significant results. The Union’s legislation on chemicals, the Reach Regulation, has finally been adopted. Consumers and industry have both been awaiting this legislation. We also adopted the Services Directive, thus creating the world’s largest market in services. The seventh framework research programme, meanwhile, will lay the foundations for European competitiveness.
At the start of the Finnish Presidency I said that the European Parliament was clearly becoming the place where European solutions are found for thorny, complex problems. That is still my firm belief and today I want to thank Parliament sincerely for its excellent levels of cooperation and express my appreciation for its work. In an increasingly politicised Europe, Parliament is a more important player than ever.
The main themes at the December European Council were the EU’s enlargement policy, justice and home affairs, and consolidation of the results of the informal summit in Lahti. Since the conclusions of the European Council are available to you, I am not going to explain them in any great detail. I just want to bring to your attention a few of the most crucial policy decisions.
The European Council conducted a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the EU’s policy on enlargement, in line with the mandate given it by the June European Council. I wish here to reiterate one basic point: the Union’s enlargement policy has been a huge success. The Union has succeeded in uniting Europe and overcoming the two-way split of the Cold War. Today, the EU is a proud and close union of 25 Member States – 27 from the beginning of next year. It is a pleasure to welcome Bulgaria and Romania as members of our European family.
Turkey’s membership was not on the European Council’s agenda. The decisions concerning its accession process were taken at the General Affairs and External Relations Council preceding the European Council meeting. The EU is thus capable of making decisions. During its Presidency, Finland worked hard to find a solution that would have led to implementation of the protocol to the Ankara Agreement and direct trade with North Cyprus. We did not succeed in this and so we had to decide on measures relating to Turkey. The situation was clear: Turkey had not honoured its commitments and that has consequences. I want to stress, however, that Turkey is a country whose future is in the European Union. Turkey’s accession process did not grind to a halt during the Finnish Presidency, nor was it shunted into a siding, to say nothing of the much predicted collision. The process may have slowed down for a while but the final destination is as before.
The outcome of the European Council is that the Union remains open to new members. Enlargement will continue and those applicants that meet the demanding conditions set by the Union will be able to join. This open membership angle is essential to stability in Europe; it encourages reform in neighbouring countries as they progress along the European path. This incentive must not be taken away from them. One of the objectives which the Finnish Presidency set itself was to keep the EU's enlargement policy open and not close the door on deserving applicants. We succeeded in this. Our future is an ever-stronger and open Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples