Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-27-Speech-3-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991027.2.3-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Members of Parliament, for the Commission, the debate which we are having right now is of great interest but is also limited.
Considering the time limits for the talks, and the time limits for ratification by each of the Member States, now is the time to wish to achieve and to actually achieve a real reform. Ladies and gentlemen, I am not talking about a definitive reform of the European institutions, but of a reform that is far-reaching enough to prevent the institutions being deadlocked or choked, a reform far-reaching enough, as a Member of Parliament said the other day, to enable further development in future. It is a mistake to believe, let me emphasise this strongly, that it will be possible at a later stage, with eighteen, twenty or twenty-seven Members, to carry out the reform which we did not manage to achieve at Amsterdam and which we were not willing to carry through now.
As regards the scope of this reform, we have discussed the level of ambition for this Intergovernmental Conference, and this is the frame of mind of the Commission. This, ladies and gentlemen, should surprise no one, since the great project of enlargement, as I said moments ago, will be even faster and even wider than we imagined at Amsterdam. I repeat therefore: the Commission and the European Parliament are fulfilling their role by wishing to take this conference forward and by recommending that reforms be undertaken now so that the Union may integrate a great number of States.
It is not, ladies and gentlemen, a matter of challenging the Cologne conclusions. The primary obligation of this Intergovernmental Conference will be to deal with the matters which were still outstanding after Amsterdam, and deal with them properly; deal with them, I must emphasise, ambitiously, because it is perfectly possible, let me tell you from experience, to deal with these three subjects with a greater or lesser degree of ambition. All three of these matters, the number of Commissioners within an enlarged Union, the new weighting of votes, the scope of qualified majority voting, are extremely problematic, but necessary, subject areas. Our feeling, let me tell you, is that it will not be so hard to deal with them if they are included in a political perspective.
This is why the list of questions mentioned in the Dehaene report seems perfectly admissible to us. Not one of the ideas put forward may be deemed superfluous. It is not unnecessary to work on the reorganisation of the Treaty to make it more readable, more accessible to citizens and in order to imagine one day the simpler amendment of common policies, as opposed to the fundamental principles of the Union.
It is not unnecessary to seek to improve the system of strengthened cooperation, without however taking the slightest risk, I am absolutely sure, of the
becoming “unravelled” in some way or other. It is not unnecessary to hope that it may be possible, by the end of the year 2000, in the new Treaty, to draw the conclusions affecting the institutions of the decisions which may be taken in the meantime, in the spirit of Cologne, for the security and the defence of the continent of Europe. It is not unnecessary, ladies and gentlemen, to work on the other institutional questions which arise with enlargement. For example, the matter of the legal personality of the Union. For example, the matter of the operation of the Court of Justice, or even the matter of more concerted European action in the fight against fraud. I am saying this in the aftermath to the Tampere Council, which you have just discussed with my friend and colleague, Mr Vitorino. On all these matters, and on others too perhaps, the Commission will be pleased to hear your reactions and your suggestions.
Finally, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a brief word about preparations for the talks. The intentions of the Portuguese and then the French presidency, the intentions of the Finnish presidency, before the Helsinki meeting, are essential for the Intergovernmental Conference to be able to proceed on a firm foundation and to go ahead, may I say, as early as possible, by the beginning of the year 2000. As for us, we are making serious preparations, and this is the least that can be expected of the Commission. Within the College of Commissioners, as of 10 November, we shall be debating the form and the broad lines of our formal report which is to be published before the start of these talks.
In any case, ladies and gentlemen, this formal report will be a comprehensive, forceful policy document, constructed and structured so as to be of use in the talks, to facilitate and, we hope, expedite them. Recalling the fine quality throughout the entire period of the run-up to Amsterdam, of the contributions made by the two representatives of the European Parliament, Elisabeth Guigou and Elmar Brok, I would also like to say that I think it generally useful for Parliament to be able to have a say and to be involved, ideally, in these forthcoming talks.
Ladies and gentlemen, I shall conclude with this observation. Between caution and recklessness, between realism and utopianism, there is, we are convinced, a place for and a path towards the real reform of our institutions, for the more efficient and more democratic operation of the Union, not to delay enlargement, but to make a success of it.
The limitation, which you will all understand and respect, is that at the time of this debate neither the Commission nor the European Parliament have established in a precise and detailed fashion their position and their proposals for the next institutional talks which are due to commence at the beginning of next year. Today, then, the matter in hand, a considerable one, is to assess and gauge the state of mind in which we, together with you, are going to approach these talks.
I am therefore going to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, or rather reaffirm, the state of mind shared by President Prodi and the College of Commissioners, and I shall be extremely attentive to what you have to tell me, either on behalf of your political Groups or as individuals.
Ladies and gentlemen, in asking three respected and experienced individuals to comment freely and express their ideas, the Commission wished, without further ado, to initiate and shed light on the debate. In so doing, I am certain that we are fulfilling our role in the precise spirit of the first clause of Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.
The first objective has been achieved. The debate has been initiated. It must take place here, it must take place within the Member States, within the national parliaments. I shall contribute to it along with all the people interested in building Europe, and there are more of them than you might think, working as closely as possible with the citizens.
I would like, Mr President, to express our gratitude to Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, to President von Weizsäcker and Lord Simon for the high quality of their contributions, and to thank you too, in this place, for your welcome and for your careful consideration of their report, particularly within your Committee on Constitutional Affairs, run and chaired by Mr Napolitano.
The primary merit of the Dehaene report lies in establishing what is at stake and giving a real political perspective to institutional reform. I shall return to this point in a moment. A number of lessons may be learnt from it as of now: firstly, regarding the timetable, secondly, regarding the scope of the reforms which must be implemented successfully and, finally, regarding the way in which these talks must be prepared.
On the subject of the timetable first of all, ladies and gentlemen, let me express this conviction of mine. This reform is the last opportunity to implement real reform before the greater enlargement of the Union, before the States and the peoples of Europe come together in a great political and economic community. The prospect of greater enlargement is no longer a mere hypothesis, it is not a remote possibility. The Commission decided, on 13 October, that we must prepare for this with the same degree of seriousness, but more quickly. This is why it is necessary for this Intergovernmental Conference to be completed effectively before the end of the year 2000.
This tighter deadline makes success essential. But the question is, ladies and gentlemen, does this deadline necessarily make a mini Intergovernmental Conference essential? We do not think so. This reform, which is necessary, as we must all realise deep down, is not only and not primarily a matter of time, it is primarily a matter of political will, of clear-sightedness regarding our own way of operating at the moment and its inadequacies; it is a matter of courage, the collective courage that we may or may not have to give priority, this time, to the Union, to give priority to a long-term vision which, as we know, even if it is difficult, goes beyond short-term caution and short-term interests."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples