Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.3.2-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I have listened with great interest to the speeches by the representatives of the various groups and I am pleased to have this opportunity to express a few thoughts on these.
Mr Barón Crespo mentioned many other things, particularly closer cooperation, development of the social model and enlargement. He also mentioned the charter of rights. This is something to which we also attach great importance. We should like to see the convention, in which Parliament is to a great extent involved, issue its conclusions very quickly, before Biarritz, if possible, so that we can discuss them there. That also means that the charter must include all the values, all the principles and rights on which our convictions and our societies are based, i.e. not only civil and political rights but also economic and social rights.
France is extremely keen to see economic and social rights clearly expressed in this charter. Indeed, this is the main demand from the European Trade Union Confederation, one I find legitimate and justifiable. If we wish to have a European social model, then it must be based on clear principles, which must be clearly defined, and they would best be expressed in the charter.
The problem, which a number of speakers mentioned, of integrating the charter into the treaty is one which has yet to be discussed. The convention’s conclusions have not yet been published. We should await their conclusions on this subject. At the present stage, the opinions of the various operators involved are still, I would say, rather contradictory and have not, in any case, been firmly expressed. We need time before we give our opinion on this. I am not absolutely sure that a clear decision can be taken in Nice. If it is possible, so much the better. At any event, France’s ambition is to see the advent of the charter in Nice, a charter with the scope and ambition to which I referred just now.
Chairman Cox, like Mr Poettering, pointed out the importance he attached to strong institutions. My response is similar. I think it essential to have strong institutions, i.e. which have the necessary power to accept their responsibilities, but also the power to avoid deadlock. It is clear right now that we are in a situation where the prospect of enlargement may lead to deadlock if we do not take the action required to enable Europe to overcome the sluggishness which is going to increase with enlargement.
This, indeed, is the reason why we attach so much importance, firstly, to the problem of the weighting of votes and, secondly, to the problem of closer cooperation. Closer cooperation is in no way intended to create a Europe divided between those in the vanguard and those lagging behind, but simply to give the necessary impetus to the proper operation of Europe and thus to enable those that wish to go slightly faster in certain areas to do so, which will necessarily result in others being carried along in its wake. This is an extremely important and almost institutional factor in pulling people along.
Mr Cox, you need have no fear on the subject of enlargement, which other speakers also mentioned, and which President Prodi discussed in a particularly firm manner. If we want to make absolutely certain of the success of institutional reform, i.e. the IGC and the related Treaty of Nice, it is because we want enlargement to go ahead as speedily as possible. Enlargement as quickly as possible is not, of course, synonymous with political decision. Enlargement is not a political decision. It is a shared political determination to be capable of applying the same rules throughout the Europe of tomorrow. Of course, it presupposes a determination to enlarge on the part of the European Union: this is clear and not seriously challenged by anyone. It also, however, presupposes a determination on the part of the candidate countries to undertake the reforms necessary to be able to join the European Union, without which the Union would be disrupted and the states joining without having undertaken the necessary reforms in order to adapt to the Community standards would face major social, economic and political difficulties.
I should like, first of all, to thank the President of the Commission, Mr Romano Prodi, who summed up the situation at the beginning of the French Presidency with great clarity. I am pleased to learn of the intentions which he announced on behalf of the Commission, which are generally in line with those of the French Presidency. We already had an opportunity to note as much yesterday as, according to the tradition, there was a working meeting between the government, all the Commissioners, the Commission President, the Prime Minister and myself. This enabled us to observe the synergy between our concerns and ambitions. Mr Prodi mentioned codecision in particular, and expressed his pleasure at the fact that this procedure was being gradually improved and was becoming more common. He looked to the IGC to extend the use of codecision. This is, as you know, one of the objectives of our presidency, along with the extension of qualified majority voting.
Chairman Poettering made a brilliant and generous speech, for which I must thank him particularly. I appreciated it greatly. He mentioned a number of subjects. Mr Chairman, the presidency can already answer your question regarding greater transparency on the part of the Council. It has been announced specifically that the French Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for European Affairs will come to the European Parliament after every ‘General Affairs’ Council to inform Parliament and to ensure the necessary dialogue with Parliament. This is one step in the direction you suggested, and I hope that it will serve to improve relations between our two great institutions and also, of course, to clarify the development of the subjects under discussion.
We also share your concern to have strong institutions, as you emphasised. I said as much yesterday in Paris, at the meeting with the Commission. I said this to Mr Prodi. This is a prerequisite if our work is to be effective and if the European Union’s role on the international stage is to be asserted properly. Let me add, to respond to a concern you expressed, that I endorse completely the idea you put forward to the effect that we need a single institutional framework and, above all, no parallel frameworks. That goes without saying. Everything that can give new impetus to the construction of Europe must be achieved both within the institutions and in accordance with the
. This is perfectly plain as far as the French Presidency is concerned. I have taken note of the wish to see that the Court of Justice is given the necessary resources.
Chairman Barón Crespo, who appears to be as familiar with the subtleties of the English language as he is with the French, mentioned a number of subjects which lie at the heart of the presidency’s thinking. Regarding the European social model, one of the main objectives of the French Presidency is to arrive at an agreement on the social agenda in Nice. We shall do everything in our power to achieve this objective.
Regarding public services, a subject mentioned by a number of speakers, the last of whom was Mr Saint-Josse, I should like to say that the French Presidency is very attentive to this matter. We are well aware of the need to modernise and adapt public services, but we also know that they are a key element in the equal rights and opportunities of all citizens within a country and that this equality cannot, of course, be subject only or mainly to the criteria of profitability, which would inevitably lead to people in unprofitable situations being deprived of services provided in other circumstances to people in cities, for example, in more favourable economic conditions.
Quite obviously, this is not France’s ambition. For a long time I have represented an extremely poor, rural constituency in France, and I can tell you that I consider, and have always considered, that it had just the same entitlement – and indeed the same duties to contribute in the form of taxation – with regard to the main public services, the lifeblood of the nation, as any district in Paris. We shall therefore take great care to ensure that the necessary modernisation of public services is not confused with making them profitable, which would be a serious mistake."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples