Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.2.2-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you expressed the wish that we should devote our efforts today to the forthcoming European Council meeting in Biarritz, and this will indeed be an important milestone in this half-year Presidency of the Council.
As I pointed out during the debate held on 11 July at the invitation of Mr Napolitano, our concern, right from the outset, has been to restart discussions on a more open basis in order to give ourselves every chance of reaching a satisfactory agreement in Nice. We have therefore been keen, on the one hand, to emphasise the link between the three issues that were left unresolved in Amsterdam, which in our mind form a whole, a package, and, on the other hand, to take a long look at the major issue of closer cooperation, within the context of an enlarged Europe. These are very thorny questions, and this is why we initially felt, I have to admit, that we were not able to move forward as quickly as we would have liked.
You must surely have noticed this too, inside this Chamber, and your President has not failed to point it out whenever she has had the opportunity to do so at the opening of the monthly ministerial sessions of the IGC. Your participation is always very important. You have not failed to point out how vital it was to mobilise efforts in order for these negotiations to progress and a successful conclusion to be reached within the deadlines set.
The presidency, just like the Commission, also firmly emphasised, back at the Evian ‘Gymnich’, the informal meeting of the Foreign Affairs Ministers, in early September, that there was a real risk of failure at Nice, and that France, as the country holding the presidency, would prefer to take responsibility for a failure such as this than for a flawed agreement. I must stress that no one should interpret this as tactical manoeuvring on our part. We would prefer there to be no treaty at Nice rather than a flawed Treaty of Nice. This message seems to have got through, but I seemed to detect, at the General Affairs Council of 18 September and at the mini-meeting I chaired that evening in Brussels, real signs of realisation setting in.
What stage has actually been reached in these negotiations?
As concerns the Commission, we strongly feel that the difficulty arises from the fact that the majority of the Member States are reluctant both to put a ceiling limit on the number of Commissioners and to undertake genuine long-term restructuring of the Commission, despite the fact that we all agree on the need for a strong and effective Commission. This would seem to be a paradox that we must escape. It is fundamental to the future of the Union, since the Commission truly is, and I cannot stress this too strongly, the lynchpin of the Community system.
Everyone has been able to put forward their arguments with precision, but at some point we will have to find a way around certain contradictions. In any case, it would seem impossible for a Union with twenty, twenty-five or thirty Member States to carry on with the current system without it being reformed.
As concerns the question of the reweighting of votes, a potential solution would seem to be emerging, and many Member States can see the advantage of this formula, of the stringent reweighting of votes, over that of the double majority, regardless of the form that it takes. However, the issue of reweighting is closely linked with the previous issue I talked about, and it is clear that it can only be resolved once negotiations are complete. You may rest assured that we will not wait until Biarritz, and still less until Nice, to address that issue. The essential preparatory work is under way. I nevertheless believe – and this is my personal feeling – that substantial progress will take a little longer. But it is important for the Heads of State and Government meeting at the Biarritz European Council to talk about it.
As concerns qualified majority voting, on the other hand, the considerable work carried out is beginning to bear fruit. The Commission has put forward highly constructive proposals that will enable us to move forward in a manner which addresses the problems raised by each delegation, and I am very grateful to it. The list of items to which qualified majority voting could be applied is growing significantly. I believe that the results will live up to expectations as this is an issue of capital importance, as we all know, and even, perhaps, the main issue for this IGC, just as the question of the concomitant extension of our codecision procedures is for Parliament. In this case too, I feel that discussions are progressing well within the IGC and that the principle of concordance between codecision and the legislative act is beginning to gain ground, if not widespread acceptance.
Lastly, as concerns closer cooperation, you will be aware that the problem was, and still is to some extent, that many Member States saw in this
a risk of creating a two-speed Europe, or even of it being used as a substitute for real progress involving all 15 Member States in the field of qualified majority voting. I must stress that closer cooperation is neither a means of moving towards a stable and definitive hard core, nor a substitute for progress on qualified majority voting.
We have held several in-depth exchanges of views on this issue at ministerial level, and I believe that these have enabled us to clarify the concept of closer cooperation and to dispel the misgivings of those most sceptical. The parallel debate on the future of an enlarged Europe has in its own way made a both positive, and perhaps occasionally negative, contribution to this.
You will all be aware that the European Council is now in the habit of meeting, or rather of almost always meeting, twice every six months, and this arrangement would seem to meet a real need, even if – or perhaps I should say especially if – this additional meeting is an informal one, as will be the case in Biarritz.
Indeed, since a majority of Member States would not seem to be contemplating a radical switch towards any other type of, let us say, much more federal institutional model, one cannot but acknowledge that closer cooperation is a fine tool which provides a response to the realistic observation that, in an enlarged Europe, not all the Member States will always be able, or want, to move forward at the same rate. A degree of flexibility, of latitude, is thus essential so that those who want to press ahead more quickly can do so, while still allowing others the chance to catch up with those who have moved ahead, since it is clear that closer cooperation makes no sense unless it always remains an option.
There is, of course, still work to be done, particularly as concerns defining the conditions in which principles could be simplified and the conditions for triggering this mechanism made more flexible, while still preserving a number of guarantees. It will also be necessary to examine the specific measures that must be taken in the field of the CFSP.
Lastly, the Presidency will examine, in agreement with the Member States, the possibility of supplementing Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, notably on the basis of the proposals already put forward by the Member States and by the Commission. Indeed, it is clear that in order to provide a more effective guarantee for the values of the Union and fundamental rights, a prevention, vigilance and warning system will be required.
And, on that subject, let me turn to the second fundamental issue on the Biarritz agenda, namely the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
As you will be aware, the draft Charter was formally adopted by the Convention yesterday, on 2 October, with the invaluable and highly effective support of Parliament’s representatives. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs, represented by its chairman, Giorgio Napolitano, has nevertheless voiced concern over the future of this draft Charter and the possibility of incorporating it into the Treaties at the Nice European Council.
I therefore deduce from this question that Parliament, or at least its Committee on Constitutional Affairs, endorses the text produced by the Convention, with certain reservations of course, at which I can only express pleasure. We will doubtless have the chance to discuss that text again in greater depth in the debate on its proclamation by the three institutions scheduled to be take place in this Chamber in November.
But, before giving a precise answer to the question from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I would like to explain why it is that the work done by the Convention would seem to constitute a twofold success.
Firstly, it is a success that we should consider in terms of the procedure selected, involving a body, the Convention, made up of Members of the European Parliament, national parliaments, the European Commission, and the personal representatives of the Heads of State and Government. This has seen us breaking with the traditional method of diplomatic conferences or intergovernmental conferences, which is now proving somewhat complex, it has to be said.
I would add that the quality and diversity of the members appointed has, due to their training, their background and their political beliefs, indisputably provided a rich resource.
In fact, the informal nature of these summits, far from limiting their scope, actually enables delicate issues to be openly discussed at the very highest level. The agenda at Biarritz will, as such, comprise two major questions which I know are of concern to the European Parliament: the Intergovernmental Conference on Institutional Reform and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Similarly, it is quite remarkable that the Convention has worked both in a manner that is completely transparent, and completely interactively with the citizens via the Internet.
With the intention of opening out the debate, it therefore consulted, in the course of its work, the major non-governmental organisations, the social partners and candidate countries. This transparency, this openness, played an active part in the gradual improvement of the various versions of the draft Charter, some 48 or 49 of them, as you will be aware.
With regard to the date, this too has been chosen with a view to guaranteeing that this Summit is as productive as possible. The Biarritz Council of 13 and 14 October will come roughly halfway through our presidency; so work will already be well underway, without any compromises having been reached, and the time will have come to take stock and put down a marker with a view to the Nice European Council. As you can see, the aim will therefore not be to discuss every issue, which would not have made a great deal of sense.
However, the French Presidency seems to have attained cruising speed, and would appear to have made completely satisfactory progress on the matters in hand; I am aware that certain observers have been critical, but they doubtless expected too much from us – and this is flattering, but at the same time does not suit us, since a presidency is always too short – only totalling four productive months, I would remind you – and have forgotten that this presidency, just like any other, is subject to many serious constraints.
Certain events which have received ample coverage in the press have thus overshadowed the work done in recent weeks. I refer in particular to the surge in oil prices – and would point out that the members of the European Council will also be discussing this issue – and to the fluctuations in the value of the euro and the referendum in Denmark.
I can nevertheless assure you that we will continue in our efforts on the basis of the timetable set and I feel that the required results have been achieved. I take, by way of example, the latest General Affairs Council, with an initial agreement on MEDA II, the continuing debate on increasing the effectiveness of the Union’s external aid, the message to the Serbian people, which can be seen to have carried weight in the current situation, and the first progress report ever on the enlargement process, which we will be discussing again this afternoon, in this Chamber. Progress has also been made at the latest Justice and Home Affairs Council, which saw the adoption of the Regulation on the European Refugee Fund, the extension of Europol’s powers in the field of money laundering and, lastly, a policy agreement with a view to setting up Eurojust, following a decision taken at the Tampere Summit.
Likewise, the informal Council of Defence Ministers held on 22 September gave reason to hope that completely satisfactory results will be obtained by the end of the presidency as concerns the commitment of capabilities. Not to mention the priorities which we have described as citizens’ priorities, since they lie at the heart of the concerns of all the citizens of Europe: growth and employment, their children’s education – this question was discussed at the Education Council held this weekend – the future of social protection and transport safety amid new circumstances marked by the surge in oil prices. Here too, the wheels have been set in motion, and the Presidency, in concert with the Commission and Parliament, is getting down to work.
I will now turn to the actual agenda of the Biarritz European Council, which is to say straight to the Intergovernmental Conference."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples