Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-17-Speech-3-218"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060517.20.3-218"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, Mr Winkler, as rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the stability instrument, I would like, once more, to briefly look back and emphasise just what a good idea on the part of the Commission the so-called Prodi package was, in that, whatever else may be said about it, forty instruments have been whittled down to six in order to speed up foreign policymaking and make it more effective. We were happy to go down this road hand in hand with the Commission, even though this was not always characterised by complete harmony.
The profound reform of the Community’s foreign policy that we are debating today cannot be considered in isolation from the upgrading of Parliament’s role, which is long overdue, for we, considering the extent of the European Union’s activities as a global player, are no longer prepared to stand looking over the fence while the governments take the decisions; on the contrary, we want to get actively involved in taking them.
It is for that reason that I have included in this report on the stability instrument a proposal for the introduction of a call-back procedure, which is intended to allow us in this House to bring politically irresponsible measures to a halt at the planning stage. As I see it, there is a correlation between our increased activity in the sphere of foreign policy and the need for Parliament to have a greater say. I want to emphasise once more that Europe’s 450 million citizens expect this democratic legitimacy, and expect it to be monitored. That is what we are here to do, and so, once this stability instrument enters into force, the Committee on Foreign Affairs will have new tasks to perform, in that we will have things to scrutinise and will need to be informed in advance. We are now being given the chance to do these things, and we will certainly make use of it.
Negotiations with the Council and the Commission to this end were, admittedly, tough and slow-moving at first – we spent eighteen months waiting for the Council to come up with concrete proposals – but we have now reached the final stage, and that is encouraging. It is at this point that I would like to thank Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and all the other participants in the trilogue, especially Ambassador Woschnak, but also, of course, Mr Brok, the chairman of our own committee, and all those – too many to name – who have made our work easier.
I just want to briefly review the points that were of particular concern to us, and on which we have now reached agreement. The call-back procedure that Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner proposed to us is one in line with our way of thinking, and she has now – and this is my second point – assured us that the Commission will take into consideration Parliament's wishes as regards the review clause. Thirdly, we have come to an agreement on matters of content. We saw this as vitally important, and it will also be vitally important in terms of practical external policy, for example, our demand as regards the peacebuilding commission. We have been able to reach agreement on landmines, on issues relating to women and children, on the conditionality of anti-terrorism measures, and on the revision clause.
In order to give you a better picture of what that means, let me say that, in the aftermath of the tsunami, we had a very cooperative dialogue in which we gave consideration to how the instruments that were now all working at once could be brought together, and how aid from the European Union could be got more quickly to the people who needed it. I am very grateful to you for the completion of the Commission’s feasibility study on the civilian peace corps, the coordination of which will, I think, involve us politicians in being responsible for bringing together and simplifying the right approaches.
Following the last two trilogues, there was evidence of compromise in the statement we got yesterday from the Commission, which stated that these measures were being taken on the basis of human rights and of international law. We regard that as an important and fundamental precondition if the war on terror is to be steered in the right direction.
Turning, if I may, to the coordination of peacebuilding, I will be discussing the proposal you made yesterday evening with the Members who have up to now been actively working alongside me on this. On this point, too, I think it should be possible for us to come to an agreement, which will make it clear to us how the Commission is contemplating bringing the Council and other actors in on its activities in this area.
It may be unusual to do so at this hour of the day, but the debate we are having today is a debate on fundamental principles. We are going for a final spurt in order to be able to vote on the stability instrument in June, at first reading. Let me conclude, though, by reiterating, and very clearly, that, if we really are to take seriously our commitment to human rights, then we would ask you to ensure that the proposal for a democracy and human rights instrument is brought before this House as quickly as possible, for we do not regard human rights and democracy as a bargaining counter, and nor should they be used as a means of putting pressure on the Development Committee."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples