Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-12-Speech-2-008-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120612.4.2-008-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak during the European Parliament’s debate on this important matter.
It is important for me to stress that the Council proposes continued dialogue on the whole Schengen package, not just the proposal on border controls, but also the proposal on the evaluation mechanism. Given the serious challenges that the EU currently faces, there is a need for close cooperation, in which we all come together to find answers to the challenges. Only through collaboration can we come up with the solutions that Europe’s citizens expect of us. The Danish Presidency therefore attaches an extraordinarily high degree of importance to close collaboration with Parliament.
From day one, we have had very close contact with the rapporteur for the Schengen evaluation proposal, Mr Coelho. The same applies to other Members of this House. We have listened, and ensured influence for Parliament, we have had sound and constructive dialogue, and that is something that I would like to thank you all for. I was therefore also pleased to hear that, in a debate in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on Thursday, 31 May, the rapporteur for the proposal recognised the Presidency’s efforts to incorporate Parliament’s views into the text, which has now achieved unanimous support in the Council. With this proposal, we have taken a major step in the right direction, and that is thanks in no small part to the efforts of Mr Coelho and other honourable Members of this House.
It is thus a strong desire on Parliament’s part that has helped ensure that the Council’s compromise also includes the absence of controls at internal borders. It is also partly thanks to Parliament’s efforts that the Council’s compromise provides for an increased role for the Commission, the possibility of unannounced evaluation visits, the fact that the evaluation mechanism applies to both first and second mandate evaluations and, finally, also a high degree of transparency, with regular reports to Parliament.
We have had close contact, and it is therefore certainly not a surprise to the Presidency to hear points discussed here that are important to Parliament. What is more, the proposal on the Schengen Borders Code continues to be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, with Parliament as the colegislator.
I mention this because I know that the issue of the re-introduction of border controls is a subject close to Parliament’s heart. It was therefore also important to the Presidency to have the politically sensitive provisions on that very ability to re-introduce border controls transferred to the proposal on the Schengen Borders Code. By moving these provisions, we ensured that Parliament continues to be colegislator in respect of these absolutely key provisions, despite the change of legal basis for the proposal on the evaluation mechanism. At one stage, there was a proposal to transfer the provisions on the re-introduction of border controls back into the evaluation mechanism. However, that was something that the Presidency and many other Member States opposed. If they had been moved back, it would have been understandable for Parliament to be critical of the Council’s actions, but that was not the case.
Honourable Members of the European Parliament, the fact that today we have an EU without internal borders is the result of many years’ worth of efforts, and it is therefore important to see the bigger picture in respect of this proposal. With the Council’s compromise, we are paving the way for a more EU-based model and, as the outcome of the debate at the meeting of the Council last week showed, it is key for the Council to involve Parliament to the greatest possible extent in the wider work on the proposal.
I look forward to the debate today, which I am pleased is taking place. None of us should be in any doubt that the Council wants to continue a close dialogue with Parliament on this matter. The Presidency has enjoyed close collaboration with Parliament on this important proposal for Europe’s future. Honourable Members, it is our joint task now to push this proposal forward. The citizens of Europe expect that of us. Thank you for giving me the floor.
It is said that politics is the art of putting off decisions until they are no longer relevant. I do not agree. We are in politics in order to take decisions, decisions for the benefit of the population, including when these decisions are not popular. I am sure that that applies to all of us here today.
The decision to change the legal basis for the proposal for the Schengen evaluation mechanism is not equally popular in all quarters. I am happy to admit that. It is necessary, however, if we are to achieve the results that Europe needs. Given the positions of the Member States, this was the only possible decision in the Council.
The EU is there to benefit the citizens of Europe, and creating a European community without internal borders is one of the greatest achievements in our history, European history. It is our responsibility to safeguard that victory. An absolutely crucial prerequisite for maintaining an EU without internal borders is the confidence that the Member States will live up to their obligations under the Schengen rules.
There has been a strong political will for many years to bolster the Schengen evaluation mechanism. A year ago, the European Council called for the evaluation system to be strengthened in order to effectively meet the challenges facing us and for the establishment of a special mechanism to deal with extraordinary situations, where Schengen collaboration as such is at risk. It is these two proposals that make up what is known as the Schengen governance package, which was put forward in September last year.
Both the Polish and the Danish Presidencies have worked intensively on the two proposals in the Council. I am therefore also satisfied to have achieved a unanimous Council last week in order to provide a common response to the challenges facing Schengen cooperation.
There has subsequently been a specific focus on one of the elements of the Council’s common response, namely, the changing of the legal basis for the Schengen evaluation proposal from Article 77(2)(e) to Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. There were, however, a number of elements to what was decided by the Council. First of all, there was political unanimity on the content of the Schengen evaluation mechanism, including a change of legal basis from Article 77(2)(e) to Article 70. Next, there was the decision – and I would very much like to emphasise this clearly at this point – to consult Parliament in accordance with Article 19(7)(h) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure in order to ensure that Parliament’s position is taken into account as far as possible before the final text is adopted. Thirdly, there was a general approach on the content of the proposal to reintroduce border controls. These three factors thus constitute the basis for the first informal trialogue with the European Parliament in respect of this proposal.
This is an important decision, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the change from Article 77 to Article 70. First of all, it is important for me to make it clear that, if we were to have a stronger evaluation mechanism, it was necessary to change the legal basis. The alternative was that we would not have a new evaluation mechanism, as it was not possible to reach agreement in the Council on a proposal that could be adopted under Article 77. I am absolutely convinced that we, as publicly elected politicians, best fulfil our responsibility towards the electorate by keeping the focus strictly on our obligation to also get results. In the Council, there was one possibility, and one possibility alone, for us to achieve this result. Clearly, that opportunity must not be wasted. In that connection, I would also like to stress that the Council was unanimous in endorsing the decision to change the legal basis. I would also like to point out, in this regard, that, with this decision, the Council followed the very clear pronouncements of its legal service in respect of the proposal. As a third point, the Council did, in fact, make it very clear that it wanted to take into account all the aspects of Parliament’s position as it moves forward with this matter.
I therefore hope that it is absolutely clear, given what I have just said, that the decision to change the legal basis is a purely legal decision based solely on content and not politics. For that reason, honourable Members of this House, it would be entirely wrong to turn this into a fight between the Council and Parliament. Nothing, honourable Members, could be more wrong and more destructive to our common desire for stronger Schengen cooperation."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples