Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.2.3-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you all for this debate, which has been extremely interesting and which has provided us with ideas for our future action. I thank Mr Berlusconi for the desire he expressed to close the Intergovernmental Conference with a powerful, and not a watered-down text, and I also thank him for having stressed the need for a sense of continuity in the institutions, and the difficulty of this continuous, fast rotation.
Moreover, the extremely sensitive question of the protection and health of the environment and the chemical industry was raised. It may, indeed, be the case that we have had to make compromises, especially at a difficult time in terms of the economy: I do not rule that out, because we have to make compromises every day, but I want to assure Mrs Frassoni that we are at the forefront of the world – very much so – with the substantial costs that this entails. However, we want to be, as we were for Kyoto, because we know full well that, as the European Union, we have to shoulder a responsibility which is distinct from the responsibility shouldered by the individual countries, the individual nations.
Similarly, as the European Union, we have to shoulder responsibility – and here I am looking at the candle, the large candle, still alight in front of Mr Watson – with regard to the Guantanamo issue, on which I cannot fail to agree with the concerns expressed regarding the state of the prisoners. Without making simplistic judgments, I can say that, if a case of this kind happened within the European Union, it would probably be considered under the scope of the procedure laid down by Article 7.
Today, however, we must also recognise that detainees in the Member States are detained precisely in the Member States, and we must make it clear in practical terms that we expect these citizens’ rights to be vigorously defended by the authority of their States.
Lastly, to conclude the foreign policy issues, Mr Wurtz made strong reference to the Geneva Plan. I was very pleased by this because it is the first time that a practical initiative has been put forward by the Palestinians and Israelis and not by the – albeit extremely valuable – initiatives of the Quartet and external bodies.
They will not be representatives of the governments of both sides, but they are representatives of enormous intellectual and moral stature. I would like to remind the President of Parliament here of the skill with which the Speaker of the Knesset, Avraham Burg, led the Israeli Knesset at difficult times and the very real enthusiasm he generated with his speeches, his discussions and also his critical remarks. They will make a contribution, which I hope will be decisive, to peace in Israel and we, I can assure the honourable Member, will be ready to seize it with the sensitivity necessary in these cases. It is clear that this is a Palestinian and Israeli process, not a process conducted by the world powers relating to Israel and the Palestinians; it is from these quarters that we are awaiting a message that will enable us to achieve peace in the Middle East together.
With regard to immigration, Mr Brok referred to the European policy which he called ‘wider Europe’; I prefer to call it the ring of friends policy, that is the policy of having around us – from Moscow, from Russia to Morocco – countries with which we have a close, solid relationship based on friendship. This is the implementation of ‘soft security’, of that security policy which Europe has entrusted to dialogue, to economic bonds, to cultural bonds. It is in this context that we must place the issue of immigration.
We have already taken two major steps forward: cooperation on policing – which really is a step forward – and the agency to coordinate our action. Mr Pirker raised some legitimate objections with regard to the agency and the danger of duplicating it. However, we want to ensure, precisely, that this is a body at the service of the European institutions to coordinate our action.
This is the first part, but it is not enough, it is not enough! This is a means of internal defence, but we need an initiative to manage and keep the immigrants in their countries of origin. Clearly, therefore, we must make a twofold agreement with these countries, on the protection and the control of immigrants, giving them the possibility to interact and also to reap a legitimate benefit from this. The quota policy, rejected by the Council, perhaps partly because the term ‘quota’ is inappropriate, is absolutely essential. I would call it an agreement with these countries to guarantee them a minimum emigration level so that they help us to protect our borders. There is no alternative: if we live among friendly countries, we will succeed in resolving this tragic problem; if we do not live among friendly countries, they will continue, with a hostile approach, to send us emigrants, exploiting them, and we will no longer know what position to adopt or what decisions to take. We should remember this: initially soft, passive defence, and then an active agreement with these countries.
The Commission is aware of its duty to ensure the continuity of the institutional work of politics: we have done so throughout recent years consistently, loyally and with dedication, and indeed, this very evening, I am going to Dublin for talks with the Irish Prime Minister, precisely to ensure this continuity and so that the work we are doing is not fragmented by the continual changes that take place.
Lastly, many of you rightly raised the question, the fear of falling into the clutches of economic decline. This is a serious, disbursing problem, which combines with the concerns that the German, French and British Governments have, together, expressed over the risk of European deindustrialisation. We must not forget that this is an extremely serious matter, upon which we will have to reflect and work in the future because we cannot accept protectionist solutions which would leave us even worse off. Together, we must, by applying the lessons of Lisbon to this new situation, give Europe the impetus it needs. The fundamentals of our economy are strong, and are much stronger than those of other economies which are currently lecturing us and telling us how to proceed.
Let us remember, however, that, although they are necessary, the structural reforms which Mr Fiori rightly mentioned in his speech do not suffice. We need energy and coordination between us all, a sense of mission, of what everyone expects from European politics. We are experiencing a highly absurd situation: all our governments and countries are expecting us to provide an industrial policy, a financial policy, a common and coordinated research policy to free us from those clutches of economic decline; the peoples are calling for this, the governments are calling for this, but then, when it comes to taking the necessary steps to resolve the crisis and achieve these objectives, that is when national interests, fears and conservatism prevent us taking action.
We have been experiencing this absurd situation for too long; we must find a way out, and Parliament and the Commission are being called on by the European peoples to overcome this very situation. Together we have to do this.
Turning to the issues that we must touch on, I would like to make some very simple observations. Many interventions referred to the question of the Commission’s composition. I would like to clarify once again that the draft Convention already includes one Commissioner per Member State. What we do not accept is that half are working Commissioners and half are ghost Commissioners; but there is already one Commissioner per Member State.
We must make all Commissioners visible with the same powers and able to lay down European policy. It is by no means the case that having one Commissioner from each Member State would mean that national interests are represented: already, in the present Commission, the Commissioners, I am glad to say, do not represent national interests but the common interest.
A second problem which has emerged and which is of great interest was mentioned by Mr Bonde. I was a little surprised, I must say, when he came out in favour of a referendum in each Member State, because I thought that he agreed with the principle of subsidiarity, whereby each country chooses the method with which to adopt their Constitution. If a referendum is necessary – as Mr Karas said a while ago – then we should have a European referendum.
You understand, then, that it would all take on a different significance: all we would need is the Constitution as decided here, approved by a European referendum, and it would assume infinitely greater significance, it would be something altogether different. I really would ask you to reflect on this. I know full well that it sounds too good to be true, but there are times in history when a decision of this kind is sufficient to change the face and life of our institutions.
The third issue: the quality of investments. The quality of investments was raised, and I would like to clarify that the quick-start list is not going to create priorities and exclusions. That is not what we intend; rather, we want to identify the projects which are the most mature, most transnational, most likely to mobilise resources and confidence rapidly. Confidence, Mrs Frassoni, also and above all means social and environmental sustainability, in line with the policies of the Commission, which, over recent months, let us not forget, has sought to establish itself in the highly sensitive area of energy policy, dedicating a large part of our resources to research into hydrogen and alternative energies."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples