Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000202.6.3-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to express my gratitude for the confidence the previous two speakers have expressed in the work the Portuguese Presidency has done on this subject. I think that Portugal’s commitment to driving forward the launching of this Intergovernmental Conference was made very clear at the meeting of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and subsequently confirmed by the Portuguese Foreign Minister’s statements in this Chamber.
The Member States are apparently open to this possibility. I would like to say that it is my intention that initiatives taken during the Portuguese Presidency should start and move ahead quickly and with a substantial input of work. I do not intend to start the work of the preparatory group merely as a kind of superficial revision of certain issues, acting – as Mr Napolitano claimed – as a kind of scribe for the positions adopted by the various Member States. I am not seeking to be a scribe. What I am trying to do is to put forward concrete proposals for specific issues, with the obvious risk that these proposals may not be accepted.
We intend to divide the work of the preparatory group into two stages, in the course of which all of the issues will be studied. The first stage would begin with qualified majority voting, and the members would then try to identify institutional issues relating to the leftovers, and only at that point would we address the issue of the Commission and the weighting of votes. The issue of closer cooperation would be included with institutional issues.
In the final part, that is the second stage, we would revisit the set of issues that had already been addressed, which had been discussed at ministerial meetings, and we would also try to identify the range of new issues that might be added to the agenda. Knowing whether security and defence issues had already had been fully discussed in the meetings reserved for them would play a crucial role in deciding whether we could integrate them into the final stage of the Conference.
The same thing could be said about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We will see, when the time comes, whether the discussions being held specifically on this issue will lead to conclusions enabling us to include this issue in the Intergovernmental Conference, particularly in the second half of this year.
These, in principle, are the presidency’s intentions on this matter. We will be presenting a report to the Lisbon European Council, which will, of course, have to be of a factual nature, given that we will be making the report in March, only having convened the conference in February. We hope that the second report, which the presidency will present on its own behalf at the second European Council, will, if possible, be more substantial and contain more specific points concerning the treaty texts. We have taken note of the proposals put forward by the Commission. In our presidency capacity, we welcome these proposals and they will be properly addressed in the discussions at this conference, whatever each Member State may think about the solutions the Commission itself is putting forward in its proposal.
We hope that we will be able to include all the suggestions and documents that Member States may send us on this matter. In fact, we shall be requesting the Member States to provide us as quickly as possible with their contributions to this conference rather than have them arrive at the last moment. Of course the conference will always be open to suggestions from the Member States, but we would like them to state their positions as promptly as possible.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is what we think the real work of this conference will be. We are genuinely determined that, where the Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, the Portuguese Presidency should be exercised effectively and seriously. We also hope to be able to hand over to the French Presidency something tangible and as representative as possible of the links that may be established between the Member States in the course of our work.
In fact, we regard this as a unique opportunity to adapt the Union to enlargement, and we must do so in a way that combines a certain degree of ambition with the need to achieve results by the end of this year. This is the obstacle we all face, which will certainly be heightened by the difficulties certain governments will have in getting measures through their parliaments or, in some cases, approved in national referendums. We must be aware that we face a ratification process which will take around two years and that it is crucial that we guarantee its success. Any failure would be a failure for the whole Union. We must therefore guarantee that the final outcome of the conference’s work is sufficiently acceptable to all shades of public opinion and to all political hues in the various Member States.
I believe that the mechanism we have proposed for this conference has been very well received by the various governments. The establishment of a preparatory group which I chair was also a response to the concerns expressed by the European Parliament about the scope for its representatives to intervene at this stage in the negotiations. I am therefore counting on the work of our friends Mr Broke and Mr Tsatsos, who will doubtless prove extremely valuable participants in the discussions within that group. I would like to add that our understanding is that they will be able to participate fully, just like any other group member appointed by a Member State or representing the Commission.
I also consider that in choosing its Foreign Minister to chair the ministerial group, the Portuguese Presidency is also trying to give a signal that it wishes to ensure that the President of the European Parliament has a sufficiently high-level representative and not one at a level which could conceivably be interpreted as being less worthy of the role of the president of an institution such as this Parliament.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is difficult to summarise the contacts – and the significance of the contacts – that I have had with the various Member States, particularly because I have not yet finished this tour of the capitals, in the course of which I have tried to find out how the different countries see the conference and what their expectations for it are.
Nevertheless, I think that I can safely say that the various Member States are willing to open the debate, but not necessarily to conclude it – and this should be made clear from the outset – in line with this Parliament’s interpretation of certain reforms that are necessary. In any event, many governments feel that they will be able to accept various topics that I have suggested.
These topics are obviously related to those institutional issues that the Portuguese Presidency regards as coming within its mandate. I would like to make this quite clear: our mandate, which was given to us in Helsinki, does not, as Portugal sees it, cover just the three Amsterdam leftovers. The mandate that we brought back from Helsinki does indeed the three Amsterdam leftovers, but it also covers associated institutional issues. In this context, there is obviously the work relating to the European Union’s institutions, and the issue of closer cooperation, which is an issue quite closely linked to the leftovers themselves. It also covers issues such as the Union’s legal personality and the simplification of the Treaties, as well as other issues fundamentally related to a revision of the Treaty on European Union. These strike us as being very important, particularly those dealing with the structure of this Parliament itself in a post-enlargement context. There are also issues such as the provisional measures that will have to be implemented if enlargement takes place before the end of this parliamentary term, as well as the individual responsibility of the Commissioners. Finally, there is a whole raft of issues that we feel can and must be included in the agenda of this conference."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples