sábado, dezembro 11, 2010

ANTIGO PRESIDENTE DA REPUBLICA GENERAL RAMALHO EANES NO ALMOÇO DE NATAL DA AEDAR

(antigos deputados no atrio do hotel acolhem
o antigo Presidente da República Ramalho Eanes e sua mulher)

Decorreu num Hotel de Lisboa dia 11 de Dezembro um almoço debate de Natal da AEDAR em que foi convidado o General Ramalho Eanes num ciclo de conferências anuais em que ja tinham sido anteriormente oradores os Presidentes da República Mário Soares e Jorge Sampaio.

( Dr. Luis Barbosa, oferece em nome dos assciados da AEDAR
uma serigrafia evocativa da actividade parlamentar ao General
Ramalho Eanes, I Presidente da República eleito após o 25 de Abril)

Participaram nesta iniciativa muitos dos antigos parlamentares portugueses que no passado  desempenharam os cargos politicos de deputados constituintes, ou de deputados à Assembleia da República, e que estabeleceram entre si um saudável convivio como é timbre das iniciativas da AEDAR.

(aspecto parcial do almoço de Natal da AEDAR)

O Almoço debate muito participado, terminhou cerca das 17h, tendo-se seguido depois, a Aassembleia anual da AEDAR para apreciação do relatorio da Direcção e aprovação das linhas gerais do orçamento e plano de actividades para ano de 2011.
( Mesa da Assembleia-geral da AEDAR)

A mesa da assembleia geral foi Constituida pelo Dr. Luis Barbosa (presidente daDirecção) Manuel Maia (Presidente da Mesa) e Lurdes Pombo (secretária da Mesa)
Registou-se uma apresentação daqueles documentos pelo Presidente da Direcção, Dr. Luis Barbosa e diversas e interessadas intervenções dos associados, e a final submetida a votaçao aquelas propostas foram as mesmas aprovadas pelo unanimidade e aclamação.

(Eanes na apresentação da sua intervenção)

A próxima assembleia geral da AEDAR tera lugar no primeiro trimestre de 2011, com a apreciação das contas de 2010 e constando também da agenda a eleição dos corpos gerentes da Associação.
(aspecto parcial da assembleia-geral)

domingo, novembro 07, 2010

Visita de Estudo ao campo de Batalha de Aljubarrota e ao Mosteiro da Batalha

A AEDAR organizou uma bem sucedida visita guiada de estudo ao Campo de Batalha de Aljubarrota no dia 6 de Novembro de 2010 que reuniu um grupo de antigos deputados. No local as boas vindas foram apresentadas pelo Vice Presidente da CM de Porto de Mós.
O almoço de saudável convivio entre os antigos deputados desta inciativa da AEDAR desenvolveu-se no Restaurante Maricotas, propriedade de descendentes de uma governanta de Eça de Queirós, onde puderam saborear antigas receitas de migas (couve portuguesa com broa), morcela de arroz e papas labeças (farinha com puré de nabo e couve). O animado almoço foi presidido pelo Antigo Presidente da Assembleia da Republica Dr. Oliveira Dias, ladeado na foto pela sua esposa, e pela antiga Deputada pelo distrito de Leiria, a professora  Ana Narciso.
A vista prosseguiu no Mosteiro da Batalha tendo sido na ocasião guia o antigo Deputado Joao Domingos. Na foto uma perspectiva das capelas imperfeitas. A jornada cultural da AEDAR terminou na Pia do Urso, Parque eco-sensorial, considerado único no mundo, que foi percorrido com muito intresse pelos antigos deputados, que se congratularam com este exemplo impar de preservação ambiental e urbana da região. 

segunda-feira, outubro 11, 2010

AEDAR esteve presente na Ucrânia no Seminario de Outubro sobre imigração da AEAP e aporvou a Decalarção de KIEV

Os elemenos da AEAP Associação Europeia dos Antigos Parlamentares relaizram uma sessão de estudo no Parlamento da Ucrânia, cujas instalações visitaram e mantieveram duas extenas reuniões quer do Bureau quer de discussão e aprovação, por unanimiddae da Declaração de KIEV sobre uma politica de imigração harmonizada para todos os Paises mebros do Conselho da Europa.
Quadro comemorativo da Independencia da Ucrânia em 1991 e alusivo a sua história

A delegação portuguesa apoio a Declaraçao de Kiev, e interveio activamente nos debates sobre actividades a desenvolver em 2011 pela Associação Europeia dos Antigos Parlamentares
Fachada principal do Parlamento da Ucrânia
(átrio principal do Parlamento)



Colloquy of Kiev, 8 October 2010

MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION IN EUROPE
Declaration of Kiev

Adopted unanimously by the voting members of the European association of former members of parliament of the member states of the Council of Europe . The German delegation did not participate on the voting

The European Association of Former Members of Parliament of the Member States of the Council of Europe

1. Thanks the Ukrainian Association for organising this symposium in Kiev. It has served to cement the newly forged links between the European Association and Ukraine, which has recently joined the association, and we warmly welcome this – especially so because, by happy coincidence, this symposium on Migration and Integration in Europe is taking place in the same city where, just over two years ago, the eighth Council of Europe conference of Ministers responsible for migration affairs addressed the question of 'Economic migration, social cohesion and development: towards an integrated approach';

2. Emphasises the importance of this symposium on the subject of migration, which is one of the greatest challenges faced by decision-makers in politics, society, business and the social sphere in most regions of the world, particularly the Member States of the Council of Europe, at the beginning of the 21st century;

3. Notes that the Member States of the Council of Europe are affected in very different ways by the phenomenon of migration, as regards both the number of immigrants and their regions of origin and the immigrants’ status (citizenship, right of residence, work permit, etc.). Some countries take in immigrants mainly from former colonies, others deliberately set out in the past to attract workers with certain skills, while some have become transit countries for illegal migrants. Still others suffer from emigration, and some former countries of emigration have changed into immigration regions. What is common to all is that the related challenges cannot be overcome at national level alone, but require a concerted common framework of law and action based on solidarity and respect for human dignity;

4. Underlines that the Council of Europe has a unique role, competence and capacity in addressing migration. Its European Committee on Migration incorporates operational participation from all member countries and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) plays an important role, particularly through its Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population;

5. Notes that, in October 2008, just after the eighth Council of Europe conference of Ministers responsible for migration affairs, the European Commission published a communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, entitled ‘Strengthening the Global Approach to Migration: Increasing Coordination, Coherence and Synergies’, pointing out that, notwithstanding all the progress made, further efforts were still needed to achieve satisfactory solutions;

6. Is aware that both legal and illegal migration pose problems which give rise to concerns – justified and unjustified – in the majority population. Politicians and civil society are therefore called upon to create the legal and social framework conditions that meet the requirements of social cohesion and respect for the cultural identity of the migrants. This also facilitates mutual understanding of the diversity of cultures and civilisations, with a twofold advantage: it brings cultural enrichment for the host countries, while bringing about useful development cooperation with the regions of origin. It is the well-understood own interest of European countries to support developing countries in their efforts to enhance the political, economic, social and environmental living conditions of their populations. In this context reference should be made to the parity-oriented ACP-EU cooperation with 79 developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Basin under the Cotonou Agreement, which is also subject to parliamentary oversight by Members of the European Parliament and the ACP-country Parliaments in the form of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly ACP/EU;

7. Regrets that tragic incidents repeatedly occur, especially off the coast of southern Europe and on the external borders of the European Union, involving illegal immigrants who risk life and limb in pursuit of a better life, causing major problems for the countries concerned. This gives rise to a need for national and supranational migration management that is coordinated Europe-wide, with the aim of achieving the greatest possible advantages for both the migrants and the host countries, seeking cooperation with the countries of origin and stemming the tide of illegal immigration. There is a special responsibility first and foremost for women and minors, and most particularly for children and young people who come to Europe as unaccompanied refugees;

8. Considers that sending back refugees, failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants can lead to major problems if there are no readmission agreements between admitting countries and countries of origin. When people cannot prove their identity or age, individual solutions have to be looked for, but the loss of identity papers cannot give the right for admission. A major issue is being created by failed asylum individuals roaming around Europe. Due to this, some countries are being disproportionally affected due to their geographical position and their country’s size and population. This creates a particular concern to establish an effective and immediate reparatory policy. Responsibility and collective Frontex Patrols must be equally shared by one and all with respect to financial costs as well as supportive arrangements for the sharing of migration flows according to countries size and population.

9. Acknowledges, however, that determined action must be taken – likewise in a Europe-wide coordinated way – against organised crime, trafficking in human beings, including forced prostitution, and suspected terrorists, not least for the protection of the migrants themselves and in order to combat prejudice. Islamist activities do not, however, take place exclusively in a context of migration, as has been shown by criminal trials in Germany in which German youths – converts with no background of migration – have been found guilty. In certain milieus young men in particular are at risk, regardless of their nationality or ethnic origin.

MIGRATION: THE OTHER FORM OF GLOBALISATION

The European Association takes the view that:

10. Almost all parts of the world are affected by legal and/or illegal migration in the form of immigration, emigration or transit movements. These often go hand in hand with the globalisation of business and trade areas, which is encouraged by growing opportunities for mobility and modes of communication that are independent of time and geographical location. The reasons for these migratory movements are many and varied: the main ones include the flight from poverty and absence of prospects in countries of origin, violent conflicts and civil wars, persecution on grounds of politics, religion or world view, ethnicity or sexual orientation, or family reunion. To these can be added flight from natural disasters – and from environmental events (which are often anthropogenic) in the form of natural disasters and climate change;

11. The work carried out by the United Nations in the context of the Global Forum for Migration and Development (GFMD), which met for the third time in November 2009 in Athens, makes the extent of the problem very clear. Calls on immigration and emigration countries, trade unions and NGOs to take part in this forum, which highlights the worldwide dimension of migration issues.


MIGRATION AND SOCIAL COHESION

The European Association emphasises that:

12. While most migrants in Europe have integrated satisfactorily, some have not (yet) found their place in the mainstream society. Some may not wish to become truly integrated. Conversely, politicians and society must ensure that parallel societies do not form in without adequate access to education and employment or adequate health care, favouring social marginalisation and allowing unemployed young men in particular to become disaffected and drift into crime;

13. Access to education and vocational qualifications and an employment policy that is geared to equality of opportunity are key criteria for a successful integration policy. Experience has shown that many immigrants stay on indefinitely, even though they came with the intention of only staying for a short time and then returning with their savings to their country of origin. Ultimately they bring their families to the host country, or start a family there, and settle there, now often in the second or third generation;

14. It must be borne in mind that many migrants have few or no qualifications and are, or have been, engaged in unskilled work or labouring jobs. Their language skills are often imperfect, and they are not in a position to help their children with school work. Priority must be given to integrating migrant children into the school system from pre-school age. Children from uneducated backgrounds, whether they have a migrant background or not, should be given particular encouragement to develop their potential to reach an advanced level of education and possibly to go on to higher education. Language learning is of particular importance here. It is advantageous if children from migrant families can grow up bilingually. They should learn not only to speak their mother tongue, but also to read and write it. Cultural associations and post-school education institutions can contribute to that. Adults too can improve their life and employment opportunities through literacy programmes and targeted educational measures where learning the language of the host country is also of crucial importance.

15. It is imperative that educational emphasis is given for immigrants to be taught the local adopted countries historical, social, cultural, linguistically and legal systems for better understanding to complete integration. The interest of genuine multiculturalism and better knowledge of respective traditions, needs to be further developed so as to facilitate intellectual integration in society as a means of a broad based intercultural addition to society. Teachers must, in the interests of genuine multiculturalism, be appropriately trained to pass on better language skills and a better knowledge of their respective traditions, thereby ensuring that the intellectual potential that is so badly needed by our societies is not wasted. The aim must be to create a multicultural society, in the best sense of the term, and not to remain trapped in multi-ethnic structures that mean segregation rather than integration. For this, a broad-based, consciousness-building social and intercultural dialogue is needed.

16. National, regional and local authorities can take international and European standards and laws as the basis for an integration policy. The Council of Europe, the European Union and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) have drawn up a number of directives and recommendations for ‘best practice’ in this area. The EUNET Integration Network has also issued a useful comprehensive handbook on best practice, to which NGOs from the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Portugal and Malta contributed, bringing to it their knowledge of various different ‘types’ of migration. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has produced a comprehensive position paper on the integration of employees with a background of migration, which emphasises the need for a European legal basis. It rightly evokes the fact that Article 79 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU new possibilities for supporting the Member States in their efforts to foster integration of citizens from third countries. The EESC has set up a permanent study group on migration and integration to work together with the European Integration Forum, with the underlying assumption on the part of the EESC that demographic trends in Europe mean that more (controlled!) immigration will be essential in order to safeguard the economic and demographic balance;

17. The media, particularly the electronic media, have a significant influence on public opinion, with regard to migration as much as any other subject. They can fan the flames of prejudice, but they can also work against it. The popular press and commercial television, on occasion tend to give inflammatory accounts of isolated incidents in a way that creates the impression among some sections of the population that citizens from third countries exploit European benefit systems, are disproportionately involved in crime, etc. Responsible sections of the media should see themselves as partners in a migration policy that is directed against all forms of discrimination and that advocates integration. It would be desirable to have a code of conduct based on these principles, which would of course also include the duty to report on everything that the public is entitled to know about, including crime or serious problems. The media have a duty, in addition, to make their own contribution to integration in terms of staffing and programming. Seeing migrants on the staff of newspapers and on the screen gives out a visible signal in terms of successful integration. Editorial and programming policies must provide for the tastes of migrants; otherwise, in the age of the internet, satellite broadcasting and digital services, they will turn only to the media of their countries of origin or those in their mother tongue, thus excluding themselves from the social dialogue of the country they live in.

MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT: NEW PARTNERSHIPS

The European Association points out that:

18. Participation by migrants in the economic, political and cultural life of their host countries is an absolute precondition for any integration policy aimed at conflict-free coexistence, although integration must not be misconstrued as assimilation. Cultural diversity is also advantageous to the majority cultures. Overcoming poverty and social marginalisation benefits the whole of society. In addition, there is a humanitarian duty to take care of particularly vulnerable groups. This includes the right to schooling for children who are illegally resident in a European country, and the right of illegal residents to health care. Special protection is also owed to women threatened with violence, oppression and gender-specific persecution, as well as to victims of human trafficking and forced prostitution;

19. Integration is not only a matter for politicians at all levels, but is also an important task for civil society. It must be made part of the social and intercultural dialogue. The task of examining school textbooks and history books for discriminatory, racist and xenophobic content, and removing any that is found, also falls within this context. Sport also can make a substantial contribution to integration;

20. Citizens of the European Union are entitled to take part in local and European elections. Extending this right to regional and national elections is worthy of consideration, as is the introduction of voting rights for third-country nationals who have settled permanently in Europe, where this does not currently exist. Studies should ascertain the available knowledge on migrants' electoral behaviour and the possible effect of extending, or planning to extend, voting rights. The participation in elections would strengthen the sense of responsibility vis-à-vis the society in which migrants live.

21. Most migrants are productive members of European society, who contribute to wealth creation and pay taxes and social contributions. It must not be forgotten that migrants, with their regular transfers to their countries of origin, which amount to billions of euro, make a substantial contribution to the social stabilisation of families in those countries. Integration policy also includes engaging with migrants, for example by supporting the changes needed by local organisations working for development progress in countries of origin. In order to implement this policy, access to visas must be made easier and the sums that are transferred put to better use. Where skilled workers immigrate, a balance must be ensured, so that a brain drain from the emigration countries to the industrial host countries is avoided. For this reason particular attention must be paid to the effects of massive emigration of well trained workers with its resulting negative economic effects. According to the WHO’s health report of 2006, 25% of cases of illness worldwide occur in African countries, whereas only 3% of the world’s medical personnel are employed there. Return to their home countries of migrants who would like to support their country of origin with knowledge, ideas and better qualifications should therefore be facilitated and assisted.


TOWARDS A EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION POLICY

The European Association supports initiatives aimed at implementing a European asylum and immigration policy

I. The aim of the asylum and immigration policy is to harmonise asylum procedures and to develop a balanced approach to dealing with legal and illegal migration. The Council of Europe is in favour of a comprehensive, unified, credible plan for the regulation of migratory movements in a pan-European framework. The work of the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) forms the basis for the corresponding recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. A consensual arrangement among the Member States of the Council of Europe presupposes an equitable sharing of burdens and costs on a mandatory basis;

II. Birth deficits in Europe show that without economic immigration industrial countries are incapable of keeping their standard of living and ensuring the necessary and essential growth to maintain a dynamic economy and effective social system. The weight of the costs and benefits of immigration and integration must be borne together and shared fairly between all the countries concerned;

III. The 8th Conference of Ministers responsible for Migration of the 47 Council of Europe's Member States in Kyiv called on the organisation to devise an integrated approach to economic migration, development and social cohesion and assist Member States in its implementation including developing mechanisms for regular exchanges of information and training on necessary reforms and inter-ministerial co-operation. In order to promote economic and social progress, governments need to review the options for legal migration, promote employment opportunities on the principles or equal treatment and non-discrimination on the labour market, and combat more effectively irregular migration, especially where employers and criminal networks profit from irregular migrant labour;

IV. An effort is required to get the various European agreements on migration policy, and the pressing issues it raises, signed and ratified, if possible in all those Council of Europe member countries that have not already done so, in order to make progress on pan-European solutions. The same applies to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, which came into force on 1 February 2008 and has so far been ratified by 24 countries. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in Vienna, more than half the 140 000 victims of human trafficking in Europe come from the Balkans or the countries of the former Soviet Union and 80% of them are women. This form of crime is worth around USD 3 billion annually;

V. Particular attention needs to be paid to increasing economic migration inside Europe, especially from east to west and within Eastern Europe, which is already causing growing concern about ‘brain drain’ effects. What is needed here is a policy of economic compensation, creating new job prospects in the poorer countries;

VI. More solidarity is required, not only among European countries, some of which are disproportionately affected by irregular immigration and are therefore, quite justifiably, calling for support to strengthen border controls and Frontex, but also between the European countries that admit migrants and the migrants’ countries of origin – for example through the conclusion of readmission agreements;

VII. The European Union’s initiatives aimed at developing ‘mobility partnerships’ between the EU and the third countries involved are proving very effective. Also worthy of support are the cooperation projects in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership aimed at contributing to the development of the country of emigration and hence limiting the flow of migration in the Mediterranean basin, which leads to regular tragedies;

VIII. A lot of work is being done on improving the third European Refugee Fund, launched in 2008. The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) should be able to start its work shortly. A conference of all the interested parties is planned for 2012, at which an interim appraisal of progress should be possible, and an evaluation is planned for 2014. The European Parliament Former Members’ Association (FMA) as a member of the European Association will take part in that conference, where it will submit the present declaration.



segunda-feira, setembro 20, 2010

Homenagem da Assembleia da República e da AEDAR, em Lamego ao antigo Presidente Dr. Fernando Amaral


(Discurso Sessão Solene na Câmara Municipal de Lamego)

Senhor Presidente da Assembleia da República – Dr. Jaime Gama
Senhor Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Lamego
Exma. Família do Dr. Fernando Monteiro do Amaral
Digníssimas autoridades
Senhoras e Senhores

É com elevado sentimento de dever que a Associação dos Ex-deputados da Assembleia da República se associa à homenagem ao Dr. Fernando Monteiro do Amaral como figura política e como Presidente da Assembleia da República.
Apresentamos à família do Dr. Fernando do Amaral as nossas saudações respeitosas.
Temos procurado noutras cerimónias idênticas encontrar nos discursos proferidos pelos homenageados a melhor forma de os recordar e que valor mantêm essas palavras.
Relembramos então as palavras proferidas pelo Dr. Fernando do Amaral na Reunião Solene Comemorativa do 25 de Abril de 1985.
Eis as suas palavras:
“ Estamos aqui para relembrar, para festejar, para reflectir.
Relembrar um sonho pensado pelos capitães de Abril, cuja vontade foi alavancada pela vontade de alterar o curso da história.
Festejar a conquista da liberdade que foi paga, tantas vezes, pelo preço duro da tortura, da desilusão, do silêncio e da morte, para que outros tenham a coragem de defender agora com dedicação, com firmeza, com honestidade.

A reflectir para que a experiência do passado, a vivência do presente, se possam projectar no futuro com sentido profundo da responsabilidade de um povo que aspira, em haustos de esperança, um futuro melhor.
Futuro, cuja modelação é demasiado importante para que possa ser tarefa apenas dos governos ou dos seus técnicos, mas que tem de ser o resultado da adesão de uma vontade entusiástica e colectiva de uma nação que está fazendo da democracia a verdade do seu destino, num destino irrenunciável.”
(…)
“ Havemos de buscar e encontrar os desafios que nos permitam emergir, gradual e trabalhosamente, do plano da crise para o encontro de nós mesmos e da forma própria de estarmos no Mundo.
Quando nos projectámos na Europa, aceitámos uma aposta vigorosa que, pela solidariedade dos povos que a integram, do trabalho que realizaremos e da coragem que nos anima, marcará o ritmo acelerado do percurso que havemos de fazer para a promoção social a que temos direito no concerto das nações.
Quando, na vocação universalista do nosso comportamento histórico, nos viram para as Américas ou para a África, estamos alimentando o curso do pensamento de séculos que têm dado força e sentido à identificação de um povo que entre os demais se agigantou para escrever com fé, com sangue, com vidas, a maior gesta de todos os tempos.
Fomos fulcro de uma civilização. Merecemos e temos o respeito do Mundo. Prodigalizámos à história um contributo enorme. Temos, pois, a obrigação de dar testemunho.
Testemunho de fidelidade à nossa vocação histórica.
Testemunho de trabalho, de perseverança e de coragem na solução dos problemas que nos absorvem.


Testemunho de convivência, de tolerância, de compreensão e de paz.
Que não nos domine um pessimismo sem tino, nem um optimismo sem senso; mas entreguemo-nos à luta infatigável pela justiça.
Contar o pessimismo sem tino, teremos a força da convicção do futuro que desejamos.
Contra o optimismo sem senso, teremos o aguilhão das injustiças que nos são patentes.
Que não nos seduza a simplicidade das posições extremas.
O «tudo ou nada» traz no seu bojo a demagogia e a violência.
O conquistador extremista da direita ou da esquerda define-se por estar sempre contra.
Ele não procura nunca o plano da unidade que se traduz na harmonia dos contrários, mas procura sempre o esmagamento das diferenças….
(….) neste admirável hemiciclo, onde a vossa voz tem constituído um estimulo à consagração da liberdade, à vivência democrática, na lógica consequente da data que festejamos, é com a maior satisfação e autêntico júbilo que me sinto orgulhoso de ser deputado.”

Assim falou o Dr. Fernando Monteiro do Amaral no dia 25 de Abril de 1985.
O tempo passa. É nossa obrigação guardar a memória das grandes figuras que prestigiaram a Assembleia da República.

Luis Barbosa, Presidente da AEDAR
Cerimónia de Homenagem ao EX-PAR, Dr. Fernando Amaral
Lamego, 14 de Setembro de 2010






Homenagem em Lamego com descerramento de lápide em casa do homenageado
e sessão solene na Câmara Muncipal dos Paços do Concelho da CM de Lamego

quarta-feira, junho 30, 2010

Homenagem no 100º aniversário do nascimento do antigo Presidente da AR, Eng Tito de Morais

Uma delegação da AEDAR esteve presente no dia 29 de Junho de 2010, na cerimónia de descerramento de uma lápide na casa onde morou o Engº Tito de Morais, e nas comemorações do 100º aniversário da data do seu nascimento, bem como na cerimónia solene de homenagem realizada na Biblioteca da AR, em que discursaram o Presidente da AR, Presidentes dos Grupos Parlamentares, e uma filha do homenageado.
O Sr. Dr. Luis Barbosa Presidente da AEDAR fez intervenções nas duas ocasiões evocando a personalidade do Eng Tito de Morais.

quinta-feira, junho 10, 2010

Reunião do bureau e comissão executiva da AEAP em Bruxelas, Maio de 2010



A AEAP, Associação Europeia de Antigos Parlamentares reuniu pela primeira vez com a composição dos sues orgãos dirigentes eleitos na assembleia geral de Paris, em Fevereiro passado, contando agora já com um representante da AEDAR como Vice Presidente da Comissão Executiva e que tomou parte activa nos trabalhos desenvolvidos.
Na ocasião registou-se o 30º aniversario da associação belga congénere PRO LEGE (dos antigos deputados e antigos senadores) pelo que teve lugar também uma visita especial ao Senado, e uma recepção oferecida pelo actual Presidente do Senado, que sublinhou o facto se se estar em pleno periodo eleitoral na Bélgica, facto aliás que também decorreu na Holanda.
Os trabalhos da AEAP centraram-se na distribuição de tarefas entre os novos membros da direcção, tendo ficado o representante da AEDAR encarregado de coadjuvar o presidente nas questões de imagem, realações públicas e promoção da Associação Euroepia, e an adapação de metodologias relativamente as novas  reuniões de trabalho, muito em especial sobre o relatório de políticas de imigração cujo projecto foi apresentado pela ex euro-deputada madame Junker.
O seminário anual de 2010, terá lugar em Kiev na Ucrânia, prevendo-se a aprovação de uma deliberação de reflexão sobre as questões das relações entre o fenómeno da Imigração e actual conjuntura politica-financeira da UE.
Em 2011 prevêm-se reuniões da Assembleia Geral da AEAP, em Paris (Fevereiro-Março) do bureau em Berna na Suiça (Maio-Junho) e um Seminário em Strasbourg (Setembro-Outubro) sobre a Carta Europeia dos Antigos Parlamentares, documento de que sera relator o antigo senador francês Chaumont.

domingo, abril 25, 2010

Delegação da AEDAR presente nas Comemorações da AR do dia 25 de Abril


Uma delegação da AEDAR composta pelos ex Deputados, originariamente eleitos respectivamente pelo PS, pelo PSD e pelo CDS, Dra Luisa Portugal , Dr. Luis Nandin de Carvalho e Dr. JoséLuis Nogueira de Brito, presenciaram na galeria II da Assembleia da República, nos lugares que lhe estavam destinados pelo protocolo de Estado, elaborado para as cerimónias oficiais de comemoração da data de 25 de Abril, na sessão solene parlamentar, e em que discursaram representantes de todos os partidos politcos presentes no hemiciclo, e ainda Suas Excelências o Presidente da República e O Presidente da Assembleia da República, tendo esta cerimónia sido encerrada pelo coro da Fundação Gulbenkian, que entoou o hino nacional.

domingo, março 14, 2010

ASSEMBLEIA GERAL E REUNIÃO DA AEDAR em MARÇO DE 2010 no GRÉMIO LITERÀRIO

Reuniu em 13 de Março de 2010, no Grémio Literário, em Lisboa a AEDAR num almoço cultural em que o associado Jose Luis Nogueira de Brito apresentou uma interessante e documentada exposição sobre a historia daquela instituição nos séculos XIX e XX.

Posteriormente, teve lugar a assembleia geral anual da AEDAR, cujos trabalhos foram dirigidos pelo Presidente da Mesa da Asembleia Geral, associado José Maia, secretariado pelo associado Corregedor da Fonseca.

Registaram-se varias intervenções dos associados presentes, e no final foram aprovados o relatório e  contas por unanimidade, e ainda um voto de louvor à direcção presidida pelo associado Luis Barbosa.







domingo, março 07, 2010

Reuniao do Bureau, da AG e Symposium sobre bicameralismo da AEAP em Paris, Fevereiro de 2010



Teve lugar em Paris a 26 de Fevereiro a reunião do bureau de aprovaçao do programa de actividades para 2010, e a assembleia geral da AEAP para aprovação de contas e de eleitoral para a renovação do mandato da Direcção para o biénio 2010-2012, e ainda um a symposium sobre bicameralismo.

As reuniões decorreram na sala de reuniões Clemenceau, e a recepção e almoço de trabalho na sala Napoleão e Púrpura do edificio principal do Senado, junto aos jardins do Luxemburgo. A nova direccção conta com o representante da AEDAR Luis Nandin de Carvalho, eleito em assembleia geral para um dos cargos de Vice Presidente da Associação Europeia dos Antigos Parlamentares. O Presidente é de Chipre, e os outros dois Vice - Presidentes são respectivamente os representantes da Italia e da França, sendo o Tesoureiro da Holanda, todos indicados por parte das respectivas associções nacionais de antigos parlamentares.

Mais informação no site da Associação Europeia em:
Texto 1
SENATE FRENCH REPUBLIC

EUROPEAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

EXCHANGE OF VIEWS OF 26 FEBRUARY 2010
SPEECH BY Mr HUBERT HAENEL:
'THE ROLES OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AFTER THE LISBON TREATY'
***

The spectre of democratic legitimacy has always haunted European construction but, as long as the latter kept a mainly economic content, it attracted attention only episodically.
In the economic field, indeed, questions of principles had been settled at the outset by the treaties themselves; it was a matter of implementing these principles, by reaching compromises and allowing for transitions.
That's why, despite the authority resulting from its election by direct suffrage from 1979 on, the European Parliament initially had difficulty in finding its place in the operation of the Union, managing to really assert itself only in the budgetary field.
The Maastricht Treaty formed a watershed, by allowing European construction to penetrate 'regalian' fields: not only did it set in place a single currency, it also set up a Union whose second and third pillars were of a political nature: the goals of the second and third pillars were an affirmation of Europe in foreign policy, security and defence matters, and the construction of an internal area of freedom, security and justice.
European construction therefore addressed fields where it needed sufficient democratic legitimacy for its action to be seen as justified, and the topic of a Union 'democratic deficit' was more than ever in the forefront.
The response to this 'deficit' has been sought, treaty after treaty, by developing the powers of the European Parliament.
The Maastricht Treaty already contained, in this respect, major advances. It made the Parliament's agreement necessary for many decisions: the most important international agreements, rules on the right of residence and circulation of Union citizens, basic rules on the structural funds and the cohesion fund, statutes of the European system of central banks, and a uniform procedure for European elections. It also set in place, in some fields, the co-decision procedure whereby legislation cannot be adopted by the Council, even if it votes unanimously, if the Parliament voices opposition. Last, the monitoring powers of the Assembly were considerably broadened: the Commission, now renewed after each European election, had to receive a vote of appointment by the Parliament, and the latter now had the right to set up committees of inquiry.
The Amsterdam Treaty pursued this evolution: the co-decision procedure was amended to reach complete equality between the Parliament and the Council; above all, it was extended to many fields, becoming the ordinary procedure when the Council votes by a majority. The political monitoring of the Parliament over the Commission was strengthened by a double appointment procedure (the Parliament appoints first the President of the Commission, then the Commission as a college, after hearing each of the appointed members). Last, the Parliament received a major instrument of exercising influence with respect to the common foreign and security policy, since the expenditure of this policy is charged to the Community budget unless the Council voting by a majority decides otherwise.
The Nice Treaty prolonged this trend, by extending the co-decision procedure to the new subjects where the Council was now called on to vote by qualified majority. Also, this legislation increased the powers of the Parliament regarding referrals to the Court of Justice: whereas before it could only make a referral to the ECJ to safeguard its own prerogatives or or to have it certified that another institution had failed to implement a provision of the treaties, it was now given – in the same way as a Member State – the possibility of taking proceedings against acts of the Council, Commission or European Central Bank (ECB), whether for lack of jurisdiction, violation of substantive provisions, violation of the Treaty establishing the European Community, or misuse of power.
The Lisbon Treaty put the finishing touches to the evolution towards a 'parliamentarisation' of European construction, but in an innovatory manner, not only by further strengthening the powers of the European Parliament, but by granting a specific role to national parliaments.
With the Lisbon Treaty, the legislative role of the European Parliament has been considerably increased by the generalisation (subject to a very limited number of exceptions) of the co-decision procedure which will now also apply regarding justice and internal affairs, the common agricultural policy, agricultural legislation...
Its budgetary powers are also increasing owing to the suppression of the notion of 'compulsory expenditure', whereas this share of the budget, comprising mainly agricultural expenditure, practically cannot be amended today by the Parliament. The Council and the Parliament are placed on an equal footing in the budgetary procedure; however, if an agreement is reached in the conciliation committee between the representatives of the Parliament and those of the Council, but if the latter then rejects said agreement, the Parliament has the final say and can take up again all or part of the amendments it had adopted in first reading.
The European Parliament is now at the heart of the Union's institutions, with broad powers which it exercises independently, not being tied to any government by having to toe the majority line, as is ordinarily the case in a parliamentary regime.
Alongside these changes, which follow on logically from the previous treaties, the Lisbon Treaty contains more innovatory provisions in the sense that they grant a role to national parliaments in the very operation of the Union.
The first aspect of this role is to ensure compliance with the subsidiarity principle.
The adopted mechanism comprises three aspects:
- Any chamber of a national parliament may, within eight weeks from the date of transmission of a draft legislative act, send to the Union institutions a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the draft in question does not comply with the subsidiarity principle. The Union institutions 'take account' of the reasoned opinions sent to them. When a third of national parliaments have sent a reasoned opinion, the draft must be reviewed (for legislation relating to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, this threshold is decreased to a quarter). For the application of this rule, each national parliament has two votes; in a bicameral system, each chamber has one vote;
– If a draft legislative act is disputed by a simple majority of the votes allocated to national parliaments and if the Commission decides to maintain the draft, the Council and the Parliament must consider whether the draft is compatible with the subsidiarity principle; if the Council (by a majority of 55% of its members) or the Parliament (by a simple majority) gives a negative response, the draft is not given further consideration;
– After the adoption of legislation, the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in actions on grounds of the infringement of the subsidiarity principle brought by a Member State's national parliament or a chamber thereof. The action is always formally presented by the government of a Member State, but the protocol sets forth the possibility of it being simply 'transmitted' by said government, the real instigator of the action being the national parliament or a chamber thereof.
National parliaments are also involved in the implementation of 'bridging clauses' allowing a switch from unanimity to a qualified majority for Council decisions, or a switch from a procedure other than co-decision between the European Parliament and the Council to the co-decision procedure. The decision to implement a 'bridging clause' is taken unanimously by the European Council. It must be approved by the European Parliament. However, before the decision is taken, each national parliament has a right to object. Once the European Council has demonstrated its intention to use a 'bridging clause', this initiative is transmitted to the national parliaments. This transmission marks the beginning of a six month period during which any national parliament can oppose the implementation of the 'bridging clause'. If, when this period expires, no national parliament has notified its opposition, the European Council can vote.
Last, some provisions of the treaty involve national parliaments in the constitution of the area of freedom, security and justice. They lay down that 'national parliaments shall be informed of the content and results' of the evaluation of the implementation, by the authorities of the Member States, of Union policies in the area of freedom, security and justice, and they 'shall be kept informed of the proceedings' of the standing committee promoting coordination between the authorities of the Member States with respect to internal security. Above all, the new treaty specifies that national parliaments are involved 'in the evaluation of the activities of Eurojust' and in 'scrutiny of the activities of Europol'. In addition, national parliaments have a right to object (similar to that laid down for 'bridging clauses') when the Council determines the list of aspects of family law with cross-border implications.
This new involvement of national parliaments could contribute in several respects to strengthening the legitimacy of the Union. First, because better scrutiny of compliance with the subsidiarity principle, by encouraging the Union's action to be refocused on the fields where it is particularly necessary, cannot but strengthen the acceptability of this action. Then, because involving national parliaments to a greater extent is tantamount to strengthening their role as a relay and a connecting thread between the Union's citizens. Last, because by being more directly involved in the Union's activities, national parliaments will be all the less able to shirk their responsibilities as regards scrutiny of the European policy conducted by their governments.
More generally, the double parliamentarisation brought about by the Lisbon Treaty – this treaty is often called the 'parliaments' treaty' – appears to be in the spirit of European construction as a 'federation of Nation-States', according to Jacques Delors words, because a federation of this type – aimed at the joint exercise of sovereignties rather than the advent of a new sovereignty replacing that of Member States – cannot be based either on a single decisional method or on a single form of legitimacy: it must involve and combine all the legitimacies.

Texto 2
SENATE FRENCH REPUBLIC

The Chairman
EXCHANGE OF VIEWS OF 26 FEBRUARY 2010
COMPLEMENTARY DOCUMENT

ELEMENTS ON THE IDEA OF A 'EUROPEAN SENATE'
***

I – Brief history
The idea of creating a 'European Senate' representing national parliaments is an idea that has been part of the European debate since the beginnings of Community construction, and which has been aired on various occasions over the past twenty years.
The goal pursued by the proponents of this idea is to involve national parliaments in European construction to strengthen its ties with citizens.
The experience of the Convention (2002-2003) has shown that this idea, often poorly understood, encounters very strong opposition:
– That of the European Parliament, which sees in it the risk of a competing body,
– That of most member countries (governments and parliaments), hostile in principle to the creation of a new body ('no new body' were the words most often heard at the Convention).
The main objection raised by the idea of a 'European Senate' is that the European system is already bicameral, since European legislation is drafted on a co-decision basis by the European Parliament and the Council. The latter is already, in a way, a 'second Chamber'.
While the Convention very rapidly dismissed the idea of a 'European Senate', it dwelt longer on the idea, launched by Mr Giscard d’Estaing, of a 'Congress' which would have convened, each year, European and national parliamentarians.
According to Mr Giscard d’Estaing, the 'Congress' would have had a double role: it would have elected the stable president of the European Council and would have been the framework, each year, of a great debate on the 'state of the Union' during which the various European leaders would have reported on their action and received criticisms and suggestions from parliamentarians.
This proposal was greatly combated by the European Parliament, and also by some States which, highly reserved as to the setting in place of a stable presidency of the European Council, feared that its election by the 'Congress' would strengthen its legitimacy.
Finally, the idea of the 'Congress' was cancelled by the Convention.
II ‑ Present forms of involvement of national parliaments
National parliaments are already collectively involved in European construction in various ways:
– The Conference of Speakers of National Parliaments and the European Parliament. This Conference, commonly named the 'Conference of Speakers of European Union Parliaments', has been meeting regularly since 1981.
– The Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC). The first COSAC took place in Paris in November 1989. Since then, the COSAC has met every half year in the country holding the presidency of the Union. In 1997, it was incorporated in the Union's primary law by a protocol appended to the Amsterdam Treaty.
– The WEU Assembly (European Security and Defence Interparliamentary Assembly). This assembly, which holds two meetings a year, remains the only European parliamentary body where national parliamentarians can collectively follow up security and defence issues.
– The Conventions. The Convention mechanism – aimed at preparing changes in the treaties – has been used on two occasions: firstly, in 1999-2000, to draft the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights; secondly, in 2002-2003, to prepare the draft treaty establishing a European Constitution. This mechanism is characterised by the meeting of the representatives of all the European legitimacies: governments, European Commission, European Parliament and national parliaments.
– Informal cooperation. Alongside the institutionalised forms of interparliamentary cooperation there are other types of contacts, which result either from initiatives of the European Parliament, or from initiatives of the parliament of the Member State holding the presidency, or from joint initiatives.
III – Possible directions
Relaunching the idea of 'European Senate' in the present context would have scant chance of being followed up positively. First, it would encounter the objections it has always fostered; second, it would take place in a context marked by the determination 'to turn the institutional page', after the failure of the ratification of the constitutional treaty and then the ratification difficulties of the Lisbon Treaty
On the other hand, there is a major movement in favour of a better involvement of national parliaments in European construction.
This movement is based on two concerns:
– First, the negative referendums have demonstrated the existence of a gap between citizens and European construction, and a better involvement of national parliaments could contribute to closing this gap;
– Second, the central place now occupied by the European Parliament (armed with the legitimacy resulting from its direct election), within the Union's institutions makes some believe that a greater involvement of national parliaments would allow the Commission and the Council to regain some space.
Therefore, the topic of the role of national parliaments can continue to be put forward, provided proposals entailing a revision of the treaties are avoided.
With this in mind, two ideas could be put across:
– First, strengthen and rationalise interparliamentary cooperation. As we have seen, there are already many forms of collective involvement of national parliaments in European construction. But these various forms, barely coordinated and poorly known, are not in a position to exercise influence on the functioning of the Union. The COSAC alone, owing to it being acknowledged in the treaties, is managing to play a certain role over time. A rationalisation of interparliamentary cooperation based in a special manner on the COSAC – which the treaties already allow – would probably allow the collective involvement of national parliaments to have greater weight. A strengthened COSAC could therefore progressively become, in actual fact, the embryo of a 'European Senate'.
– Second, relaunch the idea of the 'Congress'. The experience of joint parliamentary meetings has shown the interest of periodic meetings between European and national parliamentarians on topical issues. Organising a solemn meeting, once a year, of representatives of the European Parliament and of national parliaments for a great debate on the 'state of the Union' is possible without having to revise the treaties: provided this meeting would be aimed at a political debate and not at taking a legally binding decision, it could take place pragmatically, and could be institutionalised later as was the case for the COSAC.