Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-11-Speech-3-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070711.4.3-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to begin by thanking you for all your comments in this debate, and your criticisms of my speech and of the Presidency’s plans. I would like everyone to know that those comments and criticisms are very helpful to me in the tasks I have to perform as President of the Council. I think it is also fair to say that, from what I have heard overall, the MEPs’ comments regarding the Union’s tasks for the next six months largely coincide with the programme I have presented to you here. I am delighted to see that there is broad political consensus on what we have to do in the next six months. This is extremely important for Europe.
A word about Africa as well, and what I want to say is that we need a specific policy on Africa, too. Europe has to decide whether it wants to move forward or stay as it is, and we have already been in the latter position for seven years. Something has to be done, and I would like to remind you all that we have already made that choice, at least nine months ago. The European Council has already decided to hold a Summit, and at the last three meetings it was declared that the summit should be held this year, during the Portuguese Presidency. The time for thinking about a summit, therefore, is over. Let us hold the summit.
I should like to say this about the EU-Africa Summit. For a start, I consider that Europe cannot go on paying the price for not having a structured, institutional and strategic dialogue with Africa. I think that is a mistake that is already costing us dear. We in Europe are paying the price, but the Africans are also paying the price, and there are people whose lives are the worse because we do not have that dialogue with Africa. If we in this Chamber think of human rights and hunger, we must also think that a great deal would be contributed by holding a summit with Africa, not only to resolve development problems and to provide a better response to the problems of hunger in Africa, but also to provide a better response to the problems of governance and human rights in African countries.
That is how I see this issue. Now, the surest way of contributing nothing towards resolving problems is to stay as we are: doing nothing. I consider that the wrong option. On the subject of Africa I would also like to tell you, honourable Members, of my sadness on hearing the news about the Bulgarian nurses, as previous speakers have mentioned. I should also like you to know that we have been monitoring that case for a long time. As you know, Portugal is one of the countries that has the best relations with the North African countries, including Libya, and we have been keeping a close eye on the matter. We have for a long time been talking to the Libyan authorities about it. We now have more responsibility during these six months and are well aware of the importance of the case. We are working on it, and indeed, I did so recently, in conjunction with the President of the Commission, when we were in Accra. We shall do everything possible to ensure that the case has a happy ending. There is still leave to appeal the decision. As I say, we are monitoring the case and hope you all appreciate the diplomatic delicacy of the matter. Our objective is to see that the case be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. As you will appreciate, political rhetoric is not always helpful, but you all know how committed we are to securing a satisfactory outcome to the case.
Two more comments. Firstly, with regard to climate change, I should just like to say that I have been Minister for the Environment, I have spent a term of office as Minister for the Environment, and I remember the difficulty we had at the time, in 2000, talking about climate change. That difficulty belongs to a different era. The situation is now totally different and I believe we have all realised that the operational synthesis between innovation and energy is climate change. There is a great desire in various sectors for action to be taken quickly, but I think, as you must all agree, that the decisions we took at the last spring European Council were absolutely essential to give Europe credibility in that field and to put Europe in a political position to lead, to be in the front line, to provide a political response to this global problem.
We are going to monitor this subject very closely. I myself – if I can fit it into my timetable, although I intend to do so – shall be in Bali, representing the EU, to give a speech expressing the Union’s willingness to provide leadership for the post-Kyoto framework and for the world’s response to climate change. I should like to make it clear, however, that we have an internal agenda to which we must adhere and that agenda includes the Technological Energy Plan, which we shall deal with in conjunction with the Commission, and the creation of the European Institute of Technology, which we firmly support and which will be launching its first Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) and that first initiative is rightly, and indeed symbolically, targeted at climate change.
Finally, a word on biofuels: there are no magic solutions, but biofuels are the most efficient way at the present time of reducing CO2 in the field of transport. I have no doubts about this and if there is a way forward, an appropriate solution that contributes towards such reduction, I consider that we have no right to overlook it, if only because it naturally has a less than favourable impact on other areas. I consider that the balance-sheet on biofuels is highly positive and one that should encourage us to continue with them.
Finally, I turn to immigration. I want to make it clear that the subject of immigration will be one of the most important during our Presidency. We shall attach great importance to this issue. Europe needs to set out a clear way of thinking on immigration. I think the only way we can have an immigration policy commensurate with the problem and also compatible with our values is to define a policy constructed on three pillars. The first is to prevent illegal immigration, to strengthen border security, and fight this crime against human dignity. The second is to fight for an inclusive, human policy. Europe today is a continent that provides shelter for many millions of immigrants, who are also waiting for a definition of immigration. Thirdly, as a third pillar, we must have a policy that has been agreed with the countries of origin, to make it possible to regulate migratory flows to our mutual benefit. These are the three pillars that should form European policy, but they should be formulated in documentary form, and therefore, during the next six months, we shall be organising conferences and shall continue to work in conjunction with the Commission and Mr Frattini to make it possible to structure and publicise a consistent and comprehensive European Union immigration policy compatible with the response the problem demands.
Madam President, honourable Members, I should like to thank you once again for all your comments and wish to conclude as follows. We have our plan, we are embarking on these six months with confidence, with the energy and willingness of those political leaders who, throughout their political lives, have always believed in the European project. I have said several times before that I was born in 1957, the Year of Europe, and elected to Parliament a year after we came into Europe. I am a European politician and, therefore, when I come here, I do so with the greatest honour as one who has this opportunity to serve Europe in such a place. We therefore start out with confidence, the confidence of someone who is thoroughly familiar with the European project. We have a plan, but a plan is only a plan. Naturally there will be unforeseen events, situations that were not in the plan, events that will take us by surprise, and it is just as well that politics is like that, because if it were not so it would not be a matter for politicians, inasmuch as politicians are there to deal with unforeseen situations. The plan guides us in our actions and, if unforeseen and unexpected events occur, we shall be here, armed with what is important for a politician: the set of values, principles and guidelines that have always guided us in the construction of a stronger Europe in the service of a better world.
It has not been difficult, furthermore, to identify those priorities, because we are all aware of one very simple fact: what Europe expects – what the European economy, European society and the world expect – is that this time Europe will resolve its institutional crisis once and for all, because for the last two years the idea on which we have been reflecting was one that everyone has seen as an institutional crisis that Europe has been incapable of overcoming. The clear signal that we must send to the world and to Europeans is that we are going to succeed in overcoming that crisis and breaking that deadlock. That is why I am pleased to hear in all the Members' speeches the idea that concluding a Treaty at the earliest opportunity should naturally be our priority.
I do not know whether it will be a penalty, but the fact is that we need to score that goal, and as quickly as possible. I am also pleased that the Members support the Presidency’s view that, to obtain a Treaty, it is also necessary to take advantage of the current political situation, the current political climate, the current political convergence, so as to transform the mandate into a Treaty as quickly as possible. I am therefore pleased to see that the timetable I have presented here, the idea that we must move quickly, also corresponds to a political consensus. There is no reason, furthermore, why we should not do so. That, as I say, is what the European economy expects, what the other European institutions expect and what the world expects: in other words, that we should move quickly.
The final consensus, the agreement, the mutual commitment we are reaching is such a clear and precise commitment that nobody expects us to get bogged down in interminable discussions, especially given that discussions are conducted behind closed doors. I am therefore pleased to see that there is general agreement on the idea that priority should be given to converting the mandate into a Treaty. I have naturally addressed the issue of the mandate and have stated that, if there is one thing the Presidency does not have, it is a mandate to reopen or alter the mandate it has received. This is of the greatest importance and also seems to me to be the core issue. No one expects that and I am sure all the Member States in attendance that night and that made a commitment to a firm agreement are fully aware of what that would mean in terms of discrediting the institutions and Europe itself. I am therefore certain that none of the Member States and no political leader advocate such a possibility, and that you will support me when I say that our whole duty is to keep the mandate as it is and transform that mandate into a Treaty.
I would also like to state the obvious: that this Union depends on everyone, and everyone is necessary. I am well aware of the task facing the Presidency, which is to make it possible to reach an agreement between the 27; not the 26, the 25 or the 24, but the 27. That, furthermore, is what distinguishes a union from an alliance. We are not an alliance, we are a Union, and because we are a union we are all indispensable and must all be ‘on board’. That is why I say that we will do our best to move as quickly as possible to obtain what we all desire, which is that in October, at the first opportunity, not the final opportunity, but the first opportunity, Europe should be capable of giving a clear signal to Europeans and the world that it has overcome its institutional crisis.
I would also like to say a few words on the ratification of the Treaty. Ratification at national level is a problem for the Member States, it is not a European problem. At this moment, having heard what I have heard, I would like to point out that nowhere in the world, in liberal democracies, is Parliamentary ratification considered illegitimate or incompatible with the best values of modern democracies. I believe that the attempt to devalue parliamentary ratification does no credit to representative democracy. I fully understand that there are those who advocate referendums and argue for direct democracy at certain times. I find that very positive and believe that referendums and more participative democracy make democracy richer. But never, never, in any circumstances, have I argued that such a more direct and participative democracy can be used against representative democracy. I consider that a bogus argument and would like to make that clear. Parliaments are legitimately empowered to approve treaties and to do so on behalf of the people. That is what the theory of democracy teaches us, and I have lived with those values for so long that I am not willing to relinquish them, particularly at this time.
A second point I would like to speak to you about, honourable Members, is external policy, which is set to be one of our priorities under this Presidency. It will be one of our priorities because it cannot be otherwise. If we look at EU foreign policy, it is easy to see that there are some gaps in it. We naturally want to fill those gaps. We have already filled one, namely that of Brazil.
The fact is that the EU has held summits with China, India and Russia but not with Brazil, the other BRIC country. This has not happened, but ought to happen, because such a summit lends consistency to our policies towards the emerging economic powers and attaches greater importance to relations between Europe and Latin America. Those strategic relations are also vitally important when dealing with questions of world governance. I feel that Europe is now in a better position to influence global political issues having entered into a strategic partnership with Brazil.
There is one thing of which I have no doubt. European foreign policy has become richer as a result of the agreement reached at the summit with Brazil. It remains to be seen, but I have high hopes that that summit may have helped create a better climate for dialogue between Europe and Brazil, which will in turn help the Doha Round and the negotiations for an agreement on world trade to continue. I have high hopes of that and I am among those who believe in the benefits of a successful Doha Round, and an agreement in that framework, for the whole world, for the regulation of globalisation and also for the promotion of greater freedom of trade and more development, particularly in the least developed countries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples