Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-10-19-Speech-1-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091019.17.1-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, we have survived the cold snap here, in this Chamber.
I have listened carefully to all of the speeches and I have certainly noted Parliament’s virtually unanimous position. However, I do believe that all of this is based on a misunderstanding, which can be cleared up.
There is probably a misunderstanding in this debate, in the sense that the aim of the proposal is to communitise this evaluation process. It is true that we have Schengen – I also note that the vast majority of MEPs celebrated this Schengen success, which makes it possible to have freedom of movement and, at the same time, security.
It is true that the Schengen evaluation was on an intergovernmental basis to begin with, and that the Commission was there only in an observer capacity. However, it is true that the Commission, as the guardian of the treaties, must be responsible for the evaluation. There is no question, however, that it will have a monopoly over the evaluation – we must be very clear about that. We will, of course, involve the Member States, and the experts from the Member States will be involved in planning the timetable of the visits, in performing the in situ visits, and in drafting the evaluation report.
It is quite clear that the misgivings that we sense within the Member States are also due to a misunderstanding. Since we want mutual confidence between the Member States, there is no question of our not involving them closely in the evaluation of the measures taken to apply Schengen and the Schengen
.
I now come to Parliament. There is a misunderstanding here too. Our aim is not to exclude Parliament, as I heard someone say. Our aim, as things stand, is simply to see how Parliament’s involvement can already be increased, with regular reports. However, this does not, in any way, preclude the possibility of our giving Parliament a greater role in this communitised mechanism, once the Treaty of Lisbon has been ratified. I am somewhat insistent because we know that the European general interest can prevail when this method is used, even if, at times, a Member State may drag its heels a little when it comes to defending this European general interest.
Thus, there are some misunderstandings that I would like to try to clear up.
Furthermore, I would also like to say that the proposals bring a certain added value when compared with the current mechanism. The evaluations will be far more frequent and will be clearer. Visits will be planned in situ, on the basis of risk assessments; there will be unannounced visits and a high level of expertise throughout the evaluation exercise, and the number of experts taking part will make the visits effective.
The assessment of the follow-up to the recommendations made at the end of the in situ evaluations will be improved.
Those are my thoughts, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. I fully understand your impatience to see Parliament’s involvement increased when the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified. There is no doubt that Parliament must play a major role in this Community method, but we have made this proposal for communitisation purposes, it being understood that this subsequently leaves the way very clear for the European Parliament to become involved."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples