Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.2.2-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we have just had a debate that was both interesting and productive. I too would like to welcome Mr Prodi’s forceful and meaningful intervention. I have of course noted – and this is cause for great satisfaction – that the European Parliament is almost unanimously content with the Charter. This is not surprising because it has itself contributed to it, and because it is consonant with some of its values. That lends great weight to this text, and to the European Council as concerns furthering the Charter. I have noted your appeals and invitations to press ahead, to take advantage of the momentum generated and carry it to Nice and beyond. It is in this light that I will attempt to briefly reply to your interventions.
Mr Wurtz regretted that the citizens were not taken into account more fully, that there has been no attempt to find a way of consulting them more extensively. I for my part believe that it is precisely for this reason that the Convention method is a good one and that ample use should again be made of it in the future.
The rapporteurs have already stressed the quality of the debate and the need to progress further, and I can only agree with them.
I will now reply to Mr Méndez de Vigo. I am not a Christian Democrat, so I do not believe in miracles, but I do want to salute the European Parliament as such, because it has made a major contribution to this project. It has been no miracle, but the fruit of labour. Should one proclaim the Charter and see what happens, at the risk of it not being accepted throughout the Union as legally binding? Mr Méndez de Vigo has asked me which countries would oppose it. I repeat that I am not here to name names. It is not the task of the President-in-Office of the Council to look for scapegoats, but rather to seek consensus and compromise. I would thus like to tell him that we should perhaps wait until the Council has discussed this Charter, and then we will be able to see whether we can proceed further, and more quickly, with it.
I would respond in the same vein to Mrs Berès. She has said that the text of the Charter should not be altered one jot and that the Convention should have the final say on it. I would take a slightly different view, because the Convention should not be placed before any of the institutions. But I would indeed like to see the package remaining intact at Biarritz, because I genuinely fear that not doing so would spark damaging debates. She also made an extremely worthwhile suggestion concerning the link between the Charter and discussions over a future Article 7. I approve her suggestion, which I feel to be one that will enable us to progress, without going as far as incorporation, and to make a clear reference to the Charter. I will propose that we look into the idea of inserting such a reference, for example in Article 6. However, we still need, and I say this to the EP members of the Convention, to persuade the members of the European Council to do this, which will by no means be easy.
I do not wish to reply in detail to the speakers, and moreover have no time to do so. I would simply like to emphasise that we do intend to be more receptive to associations’ expectations. One could indeed wish for more and for improvement, but I honestly believe that we have made a good start. The satisfaction that this Chamber has shown in the Draft Charter is a powerful indication that there has been transparency, an opening out, that the method is a promising one, and that we have also gone some way to meeting the aspirations of the citizens, which are reflected in the method.
Mrs Sudre voiced the concerns of our fellow citizens over the economic and social problems that have given rise to Euro-scepticism. That was not the subject under discussion today, but I must take the opportunity to remind her that, while it is true that the French Presidency has a major assignment to fulfil on the institutional front, it also has strong priorities in respect of the citizens. I would not want these priorities to be overshadowed by the institutional priorities. I could mention, for example, the social agenda which is a priority for us, or the setting in place of something that I would not call an economic government, but economic governance, to address these problems.
I will end by saying let there be no doubt but that the French Presidency intends to give the European Parliament all the attention it deserves, and that I will be in this Chamber on 24 October to report on Biarritz. I would add that we want to work in the complete transparency you desire, and to carry on with the regular exchanges that we have held with you since July. This would seem to me essential if we want Biarritz to be a successful European Council, which is to say one that paves the way, under respectable conditions, for success in Nice, for it is the Nice Council that will determine the shape and the success of what follows. That is why I invite you, in spite of everything, not to throw yourselves headlong into the future, as this is a future that should be built step by step, and stone by stone.
Mr Prodi has spoken in favour of preserving the Community model, which met with great approval throughout this Chamber, and I would like, in my turn, to welcome this speech which will doubtless continue to be viewed as a major one. I agree with him on the need to maintain the institutional balance and enhance the role, in political terms, of both the Commission and the Council. I agree with him that the Commission must continue to play a pivotal role as guardian of the common interests of the Community. I agree with him on the need to guard against a return to intergovernmental methods, which some find appealing. However, without wanting to enter into a dialogue with him on a matter that will warrant further debate, I would also like to share with him some of the Council’s reactions.
We must bear in mind the Community as a whole. The originality of the institutional system resides precisely in the sharing of responsibilities, relying on procedures that are sometimes subtle, but which are, I feel, tried and tested ones. Would it not be worth defining the responsibilities at each level in the decision-making process more clearly, rather than seeking to proceed with a legal allocation of powers on the basis of a traditional federal model? Would we not then be closer to the model than the founding fathers intended?
A second observation. There are certain areas in which the sovereignty of the Member States could not be called into question without this conflicting with the spirit of European integration. On this issue I would like to indicate, if not my disagreement, then at least some slight differences in opinion on two points. The first concerns the common foreign and security policy, and the suggestion to integrate the High Representative for CFSP into the Commission. You will be aware that this was a deliberate decision taken in Amsterdam to clearly distinguish the two roles, with the High Representative, as opposed to the Commission, not speaking from a completely independent viewpoint, but under a remit to coordinate the common foreign and security policies that lie within the competence of the Member States, and there we should leave perhaps ample scope for an intergovernmental approach. CFSP, for reasons as much to do with history as with the nature of this area, will doubtless be the subject of coordination between Member States for some time to come. Perhaps one day we will have to abolish this function, but that day has not yet come. It is time, instead, to intensify this function.
The second slight difference concerns the euro. The recent fluctuations in this currency have revealed the need for a more political style of governance, of management. For all that, we should not, I feel, steer clear of strong intergovernmental cooperation, cooperation in respect of economic policies, when seeking solutions. As I see it, reasoning in terms of governance, there is a need for both the Council and the Commission to have a firm hand on the tiller and, in this case too, to ensure that the Community as a whole is catered for. That is why I believe it is very important for the Chairman of the Eurogroup – which we chose to set up – to continue to play a full role in this area.
There are many of us who want a federation of nation states, which means that each state must find the position that best suits it. A variety of opinions only serves to improve the quality of the debate, and I believe that we have just heard a very important speech. I was pleased to hear, Mr Napolitano, that we agree on the fact that we must not go too quickly, or risk jeopardising the Charter. You suggest that the Charter could provide the springboard for a future constitution, and why not. But we must reach agreement on what to put in this constitution.
I am anxious to reassure Mr Poettering of my ability to chew gum while still listening carefully to what he has to say. He was quite right to emphasise the distance we have travelled since the fall of the wall and the reunification of Germany ten years ago. I hope now that democracy has gained a foothold in Serbia. He wanted the Presidency to outline the way forward at Nice. The presidency is, of course, aware that things will not come to a halt at Nice, that we must look to the future and handing over the baton. Once again, let us not take future debates as a pretext for not reaching – and this is not your suggestion – decisions that should be taken today within the IGC. It is clearly the aim of the Biarritz Council to contribute to these decisions, to prepare them.
Mr Barón Crespo emphasised that the Charter was a fine document and one to be proud of. Why then does he want to put it under glass? I believe that we must not forget, quite simply, that some Member States – it is not my job to name them – have already had to overcome considerable resistance and reluctance in getting this text accepted, which is why I am being, if not prudent, then at least patient, as I believe is necessary. As concerns the IGC, I do not fully share his point of view. I do not feel that we have reached a standstill, but rather that signs of a renewal are apparent. I moreover hope that these signs will be even more pronounced at Biarritz. As for the future, perhaps the method will indeed have to be reviewed, to comprise, perhaps, a convention rather than an IGC, even if it should perhaps not become a system.
Mr Lannoye welcomed the view that I expressed with regard to a European constitution. I do not know whether, as one of the speakers said, I am representative of my institution, and must say that this is my own personal opinion. To my mind, the majority of Member States do not wish to start work on a constitution for the time being. On the contrary, Evian showed that there was considerable resistance to doing so."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples