Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-226"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991117.7.3-226"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference will take a stand on two interrelated issues. One is the issue of the so-called institutional triangle, a question that was not answered in Amsterdam. The other issue concerns enlargement into Eastern Europe.
Firstly, it is crucial that the reform that is drafted is democratic and that it has a democratising effect. In other words, that it subordinates bureaucrats to elected officers and subordinates the latter to public opinion in each country, and that its democratic legitimacy is strengthened through the participation of national parliaments and is not replaced by organisations of dubious representativeness or by supposed wise men.
Secondly, we are fighting for an institutional reform in which there is a balance, not just between the Community institutions, but between the Member States, and for this balance to be expressed in the durability of this reform. We therefore think that adopting new federal powers at Union level will do nothing more than highlight this imbalance and increase the distance between the Union and its constituent peoples, as happens a little with each reform – and the high rates of abstention throughout Europe in the European elections show this to be true.
We are also opposed to the idea of the constitutionalisation of the Treaties as well as to the integration of a future Charter of Fundamental Rights in some kind of European constitutional process because we still think that European citizenship merely complements national citizenship and that therefore, the definition of the duties and fundamental rights of each nation’s citizens falls to the citizens of that nation.
Respect for the European people’s will leads us to state with complete conviction the need to institutionalise the Luxembourg compromise. We do not really see how we can increase the range of matters that can be decided by qualified majority unless the Member States, especially the smallest, have the means to oppose them by invoking their pre-eminent national interest.
Mr President, we share the conviction that with the forthcoming enlargement into Eastern Europe, the Union can continue to create the right conditions for the States to enrich each other instead of causing the ruin of some in order to give others more help in succeeding.
We think that the economy and the competitiveness of European countries can be developed in a context that favours the modernisation of social systems without giving up the fundamental requirement of solidarity. We even think that Europe could acquire an external political dimension which matches its economic importance, and that this can be done whilst respecting the national interests of each Member State.
However, the construction of Europe does not mean taking away from peoples and nations the scope for autonomy that enables them to control their own destiny. By this I mean that we can only undertake this construction if we support respect for national sovereignty, if we support approval by the people, social and political consensus, the openness and transparency of the processes and respect for all the constituent countries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples