Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000202.6.3-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the House, at this stage, following this debate which I have listened to most attentively and with great interest, I should like to make a few comments in addition to the guidelines and the statements which it has been my honour to present to you in the course of recent weeks in the company of President Prodi.
Throughout this conference, ladies and gentlemen, it is not only the status of the negotiators which is important, but the quality of what they will be saying. And once again I should like to point out in this House, in view of my own experience prior to Amsterdam, that whatever the ambiguity or weakness of the status acknowledged to the two representatives of the European Parliament, prior to Amsterdam, the quality of what Mrs Guigou and Mr Brok said counted for a lot in these negotiations. I am sure that the situation will be just the same and, as far as I am concerned, in my current position, I shall ensure that the contributions of your two representatives are listened to and respected throughout these negotiations. I am sure that in this way the European Parliament will not be just an observer at these negotiations any more than the Commission will be.
We now await, therefore, with great interest, ladies and gentlemen of the House, your next opinion, in which you will specify Parliament’s priorities and practical proposals for these negotiations. It is extremely important that the two European institutions involved in these negotiations, the Commission on the one hand and Parliament on the other, alongside the Council members, explain clearly to the citizens of the Union continually, every day, what the issues of this conference are and what responses we advocate in our capacity as European institutions responsible for ensuring both the proper operation of this enlarged Union and the common interest.
In the coming months, ladies and gentlemen of the House, the Commission will therefore be working in close cooperation, on good terms, with your two representatives, Professor Tsatsos and Mr Elmar Brok, in order to reconcile our points of view, if need be. Quite probably, our points of view and our positions will not always be the same. There will probably be differences of opinion, that would be only normal. The important thing is that we are consistent, and I have been committed to working towards this consistency ever since I accepted the position of Commissioner.
Our concern and our ambition, therefore, on a large number of subjects, is to be on the same wavelength and to carry these negotiations forward successfully. This will not be a matter of chance, since, let me repeat, I feel we have the same ambitions for these negotiations and that together we see it as a moment of truth for the European Union.
Finally, I should like to make three additional comments, quite briefly, Mr President. Firstly, to congratulate and thank Mr Napolitano, the chairman, and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs for the extremely original major initiative which it took yesterday in bringing together the competent representatives of national parliaments, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Commission for an initial joint debate. Such dialogue between the national parliaments, the European Parliament and ourselves is extremely important. I have said, furthermore, that I would play my part by visiting each of the national parliaments. Tomorrow, I shall be in London. In a fortnight’s time, I shall be in Berlin. In three weeks’ time, I shall be in Paris, and I shall continue this dialogue in one capital after another. I feel this initiative you have taken is extremely positive, and I should like to thank you for taking it.
My second brief comment is to thank the Portuguese Presidency, particularly Mr Seixas da Costa, for his proactive approach. Indeed, the comments which have just been made express a proactive attitude and a concern which match his own: the Portuguese Presidency cannot be just an interim presidency. It will have to initiate these negotiations. We are well aware that they cannot be completed within these six months and that it will have to hand over to the French Presidency, in the hope that a conclusion can be reached before the end of the year 2000. Not only that a conclusion can be reached, but that a successful conclusion can be reached, which is not necessarily the same thing.
Concluding negotiations is not the same as concluding them successfully. The handover will have been made, but the conditions in which the handover is going to be made, by yourself, Mr President, and by the Portuguese Presidency, are going to be extremely important, as is the nature of this handover. It is all the work which is going to be carried out together, under your guidance particularly, in the course of these few months, which is extremely important.
We have great confidence in the Portuguese Presidency’s ability to bring this task to a successful conclusion, and indeed great expectations thereof. Portugal is a small country, but being a small country is no reason why one may not have great ambitions. After having heard Prime Minister Guterres, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and yourself, I have confidence in the ambition of the Portuguese Presidency and the extremely proactive way in which it will conduct these negotiations. It can count on the partnership of the Commission over the next few months.
Finally, let me repeat, we shall have a very great effort to make in order to popularise the topics of these negotiations. These are difficult subjects, subjects relating to institutional policy and mechanisms which are not always easy to explain. All the more reason for Members of the European Parliament, Ministers, Commissioners to devote a little time to explaining matters to the citizens, to public debate. As far as the Commission is concerned, it will, ladies and gentlemen, be taking initiatives to inaugurate and orchestrate this public debate.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the report which they produced after extremely thorough and meticulous work, your two rapporteurs, Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen, proposed that Parliament should adopt a formal opinion pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty and thus, if this opinion were adopted, the Intergovernmental Conference could effectively start on 14 February, as suggested by the Portuguese Presidency. As far as we are concerned, after producing the opinion expected from the Commission, according to this same Article 48 of the Treaty, we are pleased that the conference can thus begin earlier than anticipated. We know, I know myself, that the weeks we have before us will be useful to us. I would just like to make a few comments, after reading the draft opinion and after listening to the speakers on behalf of the various groups.
Firstly, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission understands the anxiety expressed by a number of you with regard to the scope of the conference agenda. I understand this anxiety, this fear that the agenda may be too limited, and yet I feel, as I said to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on returning from Helsinki, that we can work on the basis of this Helsinki mandate. Indeed, it is in this spirit and in the framework of this mandate, which the Commission framed for its own opinion, but using all the terms thereof, plus everything between the lines.
We have not restricted ourselves to the three so-called leftovers, which is, in any case, an incorrect label. I do not like the term ‘leftovers’ any more than Richard Corbett does. It gives the impression that they are three minor or insignificant subjects whereas in fact they are three extremely serious and important subjects, and difficult, so difficult that we did not have sufficient political courage collectively at Amsterdam to deal with them in depth.
As far as we are concerned – I am responding to Mr Seguro who expressed concerns about this just now – we have not restricted ourselves to these three subjects, even though I do consider them as priorities, and consider that they must be dealt with now. They are the first but they are not the only subjects, Mr Seguro, that the conference must deal with. We have dealt with other subjects and we have mentioned our idea that other subjects may be dealt with in this conference, if the Portuguese Presidency firstly, and then the French Presidency, so wish, in view of the serious nature of the present juncture prior to enlargement.
We are ready for it, whether it is a matter of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on which work has started, the CFSP and the consequences for the institutions of the current defence policy negotiations, or an extremely difficult subject on which we are continuing to work: reorganisation of the Treaties.
I have heard many comments on the Commission’s opinion, which mentioned all these subjects and dealt with many of them in depth, with specific indications of new draft articles, but no one has said that we were going beyond the Helsinki mandate. This proves that it is possible to go into issues in depth while respecting this mandate, by using the terms laid down in the mandate and all the openings which it offers.
As regards the participation of the European Parliament in the conference proceedings, I think that Mr Seixas da Costa will agree with me, on the basis of our shared experience, in saying that you would be wrong to disregard the level of the reflection and negotiating group in which your two representatives, Professor Tsatsos and Mr Brok, are going to be working. Of course, the final trade-offs will be made, as in any institutional negotiations, and I think this is no bad thing, at Council level, especially at the level of the Council of Heads of State and Government, who hold the key to the success of this conference in their hands.
Let me point out, in passing, that the Commission President, Mr Prodi, is also a Council member, and he has every intention of making use of this position and this role, alongside the Heads of State and Government, particularly during the final period. However, these Council proceedings must be carefully prepared. This preparatory work, this fine-tuning, must not be omitted, ladies and gentlemen of the House. I know from my own experience in Amsterdam that it is extremely important and useful, and that it will not just be limited to technical details. I think that all of us, the personal representatives of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, your two representatives, and myself, as a representative of the Commission, will be going into matters in detail, but it will be afterwards, at a different level, one in which we will also be participating, that the last trade-offs must be made."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples