Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.2.3-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too thank you for the quality of the debate that we have had, which shows how the Council, Parliament and the Commission are strengthening their resolve to work together.
We shall also call for support – I have heard some speeches to this effect – and some positive assistance from the vast world of the volunteer sector and NGOs to help us in detecting movements of funds and the transparency of financial transfers. I can say that I personally shall meet representatives of non-governmental organisations and, until there has been a thorough debate, we in Brussels do not intend to issue a unilateral executive document. We shall hold back and ask for their help; the transparency of financial transfers is indeed one of our preventative weapons for fighting terrorism.
One final thought: I have heard many of you – I remember Mr Lambrinidis in particular – mention the need for the people and civil communities not to feel excluded from this great, concerted, political endeavour to defeat terrorism.
If the citizens feel distanced from this great challenge that we have in common, then we – the Commission, Parliament and the Council – will have lost effective contact with the source of our democratic legitimacy, that is to say the citizens.
That is a factor, ladies and gentlemen, that perhaps lies at the root of the mistrust and distance that led so many people in France and the Netherlands to say ‘No’, because they felt excluded and distanced. In the fight against terrorism we need to keep them close.
Some of you have stated – Mr Schulz did so very forcefully, as did Mr Barón Crespo – that we often have long, protracted debates about the same subjects. That is very often the case in certain institutional areas. You are right, Mr Schulz: we did indeed include measures in the Constitutional Treaty that would have enabled us to make progress; for the time being, however, such progress will not be possible.
Ladies and gentlemen, in reflecting on the future of Europe and in addressing security as a priority area for European action, we shall have to place greater emphasis on the fact that, if we are serious about wanting to reduce national rivalries, we must create a more solid and more cohesive institutional common ground in Europe.
That common ground does not exist at present; meanwhile, terrorism and cross-border organised crime are unfortunately changing and developing much faster than our European institutions. That is a problem that we have to face when our citizens call for a response – the EU policy response that many of you have emphasised.
How should we act now? I shall just take up a few of the suggestions that I have heard, starting with Mr Brok’s: fewer new laws, fewer new legislative initiatives and more implementation of the existing rules. That is a principle of which I have become aware during my first seven months – not a long time – working in the Commission: many Member States are seriously behind schedule in implementing the rules that already exist; there still remain institutional rivalries, which are being worn down through the joint work of the institutional players.
That is why I have proposed a mechanism within the plan of action for permanently monitoring the implementation of existing rules, so as to evaluate whether and to what extent we are progressing – and you have endorsed that. Furthermore, I myself and the Commission services will, of course, undertake to provide the Member States that request it with the technical assistance they need to implement the existing rules on terrorism. Ladies and gentlemen, I shall ensure that I refer back to you periodically – I shall do so every six months – regarding implementation methods, and whether the existing rules have been duly implemented and by whom, but to do that I shall need your firm political, not legislative, support.
Lastly, a final thought about Europe’s political strategy. Mr Poettering and then Mr Mayor Oreja, amongst others, spoke of a primarily political response. I agree wholeheartedly and say: let us involve civil society more – the religious and civil communities that throughout Europe represent this great reality that is our reality – and let us work with them to eliminate the deep roots of terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists.
Something that I have already mentioned to you and will mention again in this Parliament is that we intend to call openly for involvement and commitment from Islamic communities that feel that they are communities living at the same time within a European context. We shall also ask them to make a gesture of responsibility: in this open dialogue we should like to hear the prayers in mosques sometimes – more and more often – include a clear, strong condemnation of any act that seeks to destroy human life.
That is the dialogue and the partnership of values on which our political action must be based. As the Commission, we shall also make a contribution to the international strategy of Europe’s security measures. We shall issue a communication to Parliament and the Council to examine with you the best way of involving international players in this thoroughly universal challenge that affects everybody."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples