Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-23-Speech-3-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080423.3.3-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we need to remedy a situation that is unfair. It is not possible to have two categories of European citizens, one requiring a visa, the other being exempt. I think that is a deeply held belief that we all share.
Secondly, I personally believe in the power of unitary negotiations. Europe is much stronger when it speaks with a single voice, with all its members showing solidarity. As Mr Mate knows, I ventured to point out that, on another subject that, relatively speaking, is in fact not at all similar, the Open Skies question, it was because the Commission had the mandate at a particular time that we were able to achieve the first stage of the Open Skies.
Well, in the same way I believe in the power of unitary negotiations and I must say that, with Mr Mate, we shall really work hard and with great determination.
I should add that the Commission has, all the same, established reciprocal arrangements with a number of non-member countries in the past. Our arrangements have allowed us to achieve good results with Canada, Australia and other countries, so there is no reason why we should not be able to stop this discrimination.
I should explain that the Commission will already have representatives in Washington on Tuesday and Wednesday to start the negotiations formally. In other words, that proves our determination to implement this mandate to the full. That is what I am able to tell you on this first point.
I should now like to answer the questions raised by Mr Deprez in particular about the implementing agreements. As Mr Mate has just said, we do not yet have the implementing agreements, so it is very difficult to assess them. However, it will certainly be our responsibility then to assess them carefully in the light of the Community provisions. I would add that we are going to be transparent, with Parliament in particular, on our negotiations with the United States, but the Member States – I am not accusing anyone, any Member State – but all the Member States that hold bilateral talks also have to fulfil that duty of transparency. We need mutual trust if we are to be effective. I must stress that.
Obviously if the implementing agreements later bring to light things that are not acceptable from the point of view of Community law, we shall see what needs to be done, but we shall do something.
Thirdly, some of you have raised the question of data. I want to point out even so that the PNR exchange of data is governed by the 2007 agreement between the European Union and the United States. Those provisions are there, they bind us at the moment and there is no reason to have to suffer any intimidation from our American friends. That being so, I noted in passing the comments by Mr Deprez on the idea that ultimately, in a general transatlantic agreement, it would no doubt be useful perhaps for an independent authority to be set up to monitor the protection of the data.
Those are a few explanations, but I can really tell you that Parliament will of course be kept very much abreast of our negotiations, that our strength will come from a complete interinstitutional agreement that will show our American friends that the European Union fully intends now to demand fair treatment for all its citizens and will do so with unfailing determination."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples