Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.2.3-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President—in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the report by the President—in-Office of the Council on the Brussels Summit offers us – to put it in artistic terms – a sketch, an outline in chiaroscuro, because a very important challenge for the whole of Europe is being faced, which is to draw up the Constitution and also to organise our territory. It makes good sense, therefore, at the same time as the Constitution, to talk about the networks of arteries and nerves – the infrastructure networks – which give structure to something which is more than just a market: a project aimed at sharing our lives.
On immigration and the decisions of the European Council in Thessaloniki, I would like to say to you, Mr President, given that Europe is secular and that European values are not the monopoly of any single religion – for the first time in history, fortunately – that we share in the regrets and condolences over what is happening. I must also say that in your government there are people who are doing positive work – and we are quite happy to recognise it: Mr Pisanu is demonstrating serious political responsibility in the face of absolutely intolerable and xenophobic attitudes on the part of other members of your government. Mr Pisanu is taking the same approach as another Italian Interior Minister – Mr Napolitano – who was the person who initiated the policy of agreements with countries from which immigrants originate, a policy which should be developed, and I do not believe it is sufficient to talk about the Borders Agency, we should talk about co-development and quotas, and you must reach an agreement on this. This is the approach which really makes sense for the future.
Finally, Mr President, as well as our group’s belief in the importance of the step forward in terms of European defence, in relation to external relations I would like to say that my group welcomes and supports the decision of this Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to award the Sakharov Prize to Kofi Annan, to the United Nations staff who have died and also in memory of Sergio Vieira de Mello. I understand, Mr President, from what I heard in the United Nations last week, that Mr Kofi Annan has agreed to come here in January. I believe we should support that decision.
Finally, turning to the so-called Conference of Donors in Madrid, our group fully supports the proposal approved by the European Council to contribute EUR 200 million. The only thing we wish to point out is that the US Senate, when President Bush asked them for aid, divided the aid: half in loans and half in donations. In other words, we do not need to go further than the United States which, in principle, has taken a step forward by returning to the United Nations, but in a situation in which it is increasingly necessary to have a timetable for returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people.
With regard to the Intergovernmental Conference, I must express my group’s concern, because it gives the impression that it is producing a litany, a repetition of positions, and is not getting down to solving problems. I must say that we are very concerned about the fact that the first decision to be made – with the opposition of the representatives of Parliament – has been to remove the Legislative Council. This is very important, because we are in a Parliament and, having achieved shared legislative power for the first time, the Conference’s first decision has been to eliminate the possibility of legislating jointly with us. I would therefore ask that this mistaken decision be reconsidered.
With regard to the voting system, we have three problems which must be resolved jointly: the composition of the Commission, the Presidency of the Council and the voting system. In this regard, I must say that, for our part, on the basis that our thinking involves how to make decisions together – and not how to block them – we support the system of double majority, as proposed by the Convention. I would draw attention to an aspect which is important to Parliament: do not use Parliamentary seats as jokers for concluding your negotiations. This is a much more serious issue.
With regard to the draft Constitution, I would also like to point out that the economic issue demonstrates the insufficiency of an important matter: the regulation of economic governance. This is a very important problem in terms of price stability and also in terms of how we take coherent decisions, not only on monetary policy but also on economic policy.
Finally, the issue of revising the Constitution is essential since a Constitution cannot be closed completely. That would make it completely useless.
With regard to Guantánamo – on which we held a hearing with other political groups in Parliament in order to debate the issue – I must say that at the moment we have European citizenship in the Constitution. However, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, it is the governments of the Member States which have to defend the European citizens. I would ask you to urge the governments to take on their responsibilities.
With regard to the economy, what you have done has been basically to rescue the Delors Plan – ten years later – to overcome the Ecofin Council's veto – which has been blocking this plan – and now you are proposing a series of actions which would really make sense, including the launch of a European loan, because here there is talk of how well the European Investment Bank can do it, but we will have to see whether private capital – of which there is plenty – is offered. This is an important issue which has not been clarified.
I must say, Mr President—in-Office of the Council, that with the cardinal’s language you have used, what you are proposing are recommendations to the national governments. It is not the European Parliament which is holding up the European patent. We are not holding up the transposition of regulations: it is the ministers and their governments who have to obey you. It is not for you to give advice, but to order your own governments to implement the policies you decide on. This is truly notable because it is a kind of litany which is repeated systematically.
With regard to employment, we eagerly await the Koch report and it makes sense to talk about the issue which was launched under the Swedish Presidency of the European demographic autumn in relation to pensions and immigration."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples