Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.2.2-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I would now, in turn, like to give the Commission’s impressions following the Biarritz European Council, to which you, Madam President, made an active contribution, along with another eminent member of this House, Mrs Méndez de Vigo, who presented the results of work on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Moscovici, has spoken of something that he has dubbed the ‘Biarritz spirit’. One might talk of the Biarritz spirit or frame of mind, and also the climate at Biarritz. Ladies and gentlemen, I can truly say that the climate in which discussions took place genuinely matched the climatic conditions that prevailed in Biarritz for the two days we were there. The weather was cloudy and windy but it was, all things considered, an invigorating climate and, I felt, just the type of dynamic climate that we needed at that stage of the discussions, in which I myself noticed many stumbling blocks, far more stumbling blocks than can always be explained away by the delicacy of the issues. We needed this invigorating climate, as Mr Moscovici has said, and I too sensed among the Heads of State and of Government a very solemn air of collective and historic responsibility at this historic juncture for European integration. There seemed to be a genuine sense of purpose and, in any event, the will to achieve real reform at Nice.
Much has been said, in the press and elsewhere, of the rift between larger States and smaller States, or less populous countries. These divergences of opinion are a fact. Everyone is conscious of them, but there is none of the hostility which is sometimes described. In this connection, I would prefer to talk of a moment of truth in the debate, rather than a moment of crisis. Above all, I would like to say, as someone who has, from the start and on a daily basis, been involved in these discussions as one of the workmen, alongside your representatives Mr Brok and Professor Tsatsos, that this rift is not the only one that might exist between large and small States. It is not even, it would seem to me, the central issue in these discussions if one recalls, and this is something that must be remembered and recalled, that ever since the process of European integration began, there has never been a case, either in the Council or within the Commission, of large countries forming a coalition against small countries, or of small States forming a coalition against large countries. This runs counter to the spirit of the Community.
As regards my feelings on this matter, I am aware of and understand the sensitivity of the issues that the Minister has described, issues which directly relate to the position, the role, and the influence of each country. I perceived this sensitivity during the visits I made to each of the Member States, and also last week in Athens, with regard both to the Commission, with each country concerned at the position that would be assigned to it, and to the voting system, with each country concerned at the number of votes it is to have in the Council.
Ladies and gentlemen, we must find a solution to these two issues, which will in fact only be resolved when negotiations are complete, and on which we must reach total agreement if that agreement is to mean anything at all. With regard to the Commission, a solution must be found that preserves its effectiveness, its credibility, and if possible its collegiate nature. With regard to the voting system, we must find a solution which respects – as both the Commission and the European Parliament have proposed – the twofold legitimacy of, on the one hand, the Member States and, on the other, the peoples of Europe.
But if I had to tell you spontaneously and very sincerely how I felt, I would say this: regardless of the sensitivity of these issues – the composition of the Commission and the voting system – they cannot be used as criteria for assessing whether Nice is a success or a failure. The success or failure of the Nice Council will depend on the ability of the Heads of State and Government, and on the ability of Parliament and the Commission, as parties to the negotiations, to preserve or consolidate the Community model.
In saying this, ladies and gentlemen, I have in mind a number of points that are still under discussion."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples