Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-14-Speech-2-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991214.3.2-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I thank every one for the kind comments they have made here regarding Finland, as the country holding the Presidency, but at the same time I would also like to thank people for the criticisms that have been made. Much attention has been paid in the discussion to the Intergovernmental Conference and the need to reform the Treaties. At the European Council in Helsinki it was the Council’s opinion that a decision on the Intergovernmental Conference should be arrived at quite quickly, and, if possible, by the end of next year, so that there will be time to ratify the agreements and enlargement can get under way.
I think there are two considerations here, which I want to focus attention on. Firstly, the three issues left over from Amsterdam are by no means trivial matters. There has already been talk here of increasing qualified majority decision making. The fact that it is on the agenda means, as I understand it, that we have to go in that direction. But that too is a huge question of principle, and after we have drafted this agenda it will then be met with the differing opinions of Member States. However, the door has been left open a crack and at the Intergovernmental Conference the discussion will turn to whether we need to raise other important matters relating to amendments to Treaties, so that the European Council can debate this issue again.
I would like to mention another consideration here: do we believe that enlargement should be postponed? As I understand it, we are facing such constitutional questions with regard to Treaty changes that, as national parliaments ratify these sorts of decisions, we will have to have sufficient time to debate the issues in the Member States and we will have to involve national parliaments in these reforms. That will not be an easy task. I fully acknowledge this and I would like to thank Romano Prodi, the President of the Commission, for having had the courage to raise these matters. They are important for the future of Europe. They have to be discussed in the near future but we cannot do everything at once, and that is the problem here. The issue of language is an example of something that must be discussed with maturity and courage. As a representative of a small country I can say that we have to be prepared.
There has been much discussion here on security and defence policy. To the question of whether defence ministers should come here, I cannot say no, but I would point out that the General Affairs Council handles these matters, and so defence ministers can participate if need be. It is quite understandable and necessary that the European Parliament should wish to focus attention on these matters, and I agree with Mr Poettering that we should not dilly-dally in this. For that reason, in Finland we are most satisfied that we were able, during the Finnish Presidency, to have a decision on this in such a ready state that we will have a policy on the matter from now on. Perhaps Mr Seppänen has not read the Treaty of Amsterdam. We are acting within the framework of the Treaty of Amsterdam in this matter. The Helsinki conclusions state that there is no question of a European army, and we are not really creating any sort of crisis management capability or crisis management force that would go out warmongering.
Mr Suominen raised the issue of the northern dimension. In this matter we achieved Finland’s goal, as the country to hold the presidency, which was that agreed by the Member States and the partnership countries at a conference in Helsinki on a previous occasion for the drafting of an action programme. The European Council in Helsinki reconfirmed this. In Finland, we are obviously satisfied with this, but once again I would like to stress that in Europe we have a southern, eastern and western dimension, just as much as a northern one. They are all issues we have in common. The northern dimension is very much about long-term effective cooperation with Russia, which is a great advantage for us both and absolutely irrespective of what is happening in Russia and Chechnya at the moment.
The subject of sport has been raised here. Where did sport get to at the Summit? Sport is without doubt socially significant and an important thing for millions of Europeans. I consider it necessary to return to this subject. It is obviously a question of competence and the fact that here issues are discussed from many points of view. There is the point of view of the single market – we will recall the Bosman case – and there is the point of view of health, which is related to the issue of dope testing. On the whole this matter should be prepared for debate, and the European Council, for that reason, did not want to adopt a position on this in the conclusions, as the necessary preparatory work and debate were lacking.
Finally, as a sort of legacy of the Finnish Presidency, I hope that all the institutions of the Union will take the issue of transparency and good governance seriously. I understand that we are dealing with different cultures. No country can say that they do things best. We must understand one another, but the direction must clearly be towards greater transparency. When we were putting the Treaty of Amsterdam together, Finland’s idea and suggestion, which was accepted, was that transparency should be the first principle, and there should be exceptions made to it and not the other way round. It is also in this spirit that we should prepare matters for debate in the future.
Interinstitutional balance is very important. We Finns, in discharging our duties as President, gained a lot of experience of this, and I would hope that instead of the institutions competing with one another regarding who has achieved what and who was first, we can concentrate more on cooperation, because that is what we need. Each institution has a very important job to do. From the point of view of a small country we need a strong Commission. We should have the sort of Council that functions well and in which the main objective is the common interest. The European Parliament then has to oversee all this. Here new ideas can be put forward. This is a forum in which Europeans meet to discuss the important issues of the future. On behalf of Finland, I would again like to thank everyone for all the support we have been given by all the institutions and all the Member States of the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples