Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.2.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your kind accolade and thank you also to those who have gently reproached me for not making this speech earlier. In reply, I would say that, before making a speech, one must identify all the major factors at work, familiarise oneself with them and weigh them up, for political discourse must always be realistic, respond to the real weight of the forces at work and relate to the aims we all set ourselves. I delivered this speech today because I can see that the hazards which have combined in recent months to threaten Europe have aroused in us a common determination with the potential to produce tangible results in the future.
I have given you some realistic, genuine examples and outlined a way forward, avoiding utopian aspirations. Everything I have said has been relevant and realistic.
In recent months, the view that neither Parliament nor the Commission has democratic legitimacy has been voiced all too often. I say to you now that, from now on, I will not permit such talk ever, ever again.
Parliament and the Commission have been far too patient in this regard: Parliament in that you are legitimately elected by the European people and the Commission in that we have dual legitimation, legitimation by the people through Parliament and the trust you place in us and legitimation by the Member States through the Council. These are the bases of our power and legitimacy.
Thank you for your kind attention. I would just like to end, if I may, on a lighter note. I have been reading the sports pages recently, conscious that subsidiarity applies in full to sport. I certainly do not want to go overboard on this point, but I was pleased to note that in the Sydney Olympics, the first dope-free Olympics – I am informed – and therefore Olympics which we can define in the spirit of De Coubertin, the 15 countries of the Union won 239 medals and the United States of America only 97. If we were then to make a similar comparison between the 12 countries of the euro and the dollar area, the result would be an overwhelming victory. I would like to thank the athletes for their performance, which would appear to be a good omen for the future of us all.
In today’s debate, I associate myself with the words of all those who have spoken – Mr Moscovici, Mr Napolitano and the heads of Groups – on the importance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: this is something innovative and, moreover, unhoped-for. However, we cannot stop here: in addition to making the solemn political proclamation of the Charter, we need to assume a clear position regarding its incorporation into the Treaty of the Union. But we must also ask ourselves: into which Treaty?
As you are aware, the Commission has proposed to start work on a clearer fundamental treaty, placing greater emphasis on citizens’ rights and defining the respective responsibilities of the Union and the Member States or, in the many cases where the responsibilities remain unchanged, to specify them more clearly. This is a feasible undertaking, and the University of Florence’s study would serve as an excellent basis from which to start work. I would stress that this undertaking is not only legally possible but also a political necessity.
I therefore hope that the Nice European Council will associate itself with this project and decide to launch it as a practical project rather than an accomplished fact once, of course, the reforms of which we are currently in need have been adopted. I do not want to go into the details of the reforms today for I want to talk principally about the method: the Community method, the institutional triangle, mutual boundaries of responsibility. I would also like to make it quite clear that I have not given up on the matter: I have provided a careful analysis of the powers at work. Only where proposals have been made have I mentioned them, and I have presented them simply as proposals.
I have therefore defined not only the major role of the Commission but the roles of all the institutions and I have also stressed – and I reiterate this once again because it is even more important – the need to mobilise the people and their consciences. The document on the forms of government which we have prepared and will present to you provides for this need, for it is a way of mobilising both institutions and consciences and it is an extremely important task.
Then we will have to go to Nice and implement the programme which we have prepared. I repeat: we cannot be content with minimalist solutions. We fully support Mr Moscovici’s words: a minimalist Nice is unacceptable.
After Nice, however, we are under an obligation to move resolutely on towards enlargement, establishing the timetable, defining benchmarking methods and setting goals, and in all this we must follow the Community method, which allows the peaceful coexistence of the different countries and different ways of thinking but also enables them to belong to our single European entity. We must work on closer cooperation and make it simpler and more effective in order to bring this about: closer cooperation is the immediate, simplest way forward if we are to take that additional step towards integration, the need for which has been confirmed by the many powerful speeches which I have heard today.
I would like us to use closer cooperation to generate fresh potential for Europe.
If this is what we all want, we must be ruthless in combating any trend towards the fragmentation of responsibilities or decision making. This does not mean that everything has to happen at once. I have been coherent and firm in my intentions but also realistic, outlining the stages of what can be achieved today and what must wait until tomorrow. In saying this, Mr Moscovici, I have no intention of giving the Community total control. I have a very strong sense of subsidiarity which is deeply rooted in my own life, and I shall respect it unfailingly. Even when I outlined the changes which are necessary, for the future of course, including the CFSP issue which you have mentioned this morning, I specified that change must take place within the framework of a specific Statute and described a way in which we might in time achieve this goal. I was certainly not for a moment advocating that we violate existing legislation.
However, I also specified clearly that, as things stand at the moment, we can achieve extremely important objectives through the Community method as it is today, for example, to improve our action in the Balkans. I feel that it is a matter for our consciences to consider how great and yet how fragmented our undertaking is in the Balkans, and the sparsity of the results of the first stage of this undertaking at least, due to our fragmentation. Another example, as I have said, is the energy policy: how great is our desire and how great is the need for a common energy policy, especially now that, in place of the national oil companies, we have a genuine market which must be managed within the context of coordination of the market as a whole."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples