Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.2.2-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the moment of truth has arrived. We have to make decisions in Nice to avoid endangering enlargement, which is our main priority.
The President-in-Office of the Council has spoken of the spirit of Nice. We must not kill the spirit of Nice with boredom, and we therefore have an essential priority in the remaining 50 days: to bring negotiations to a political level. It would be better if this were done publicly as in the case of the Convention, but in any event, we cannot once again restructure the Intergovernmental Conference, which has been treading water for nine months without making any progress at all.
With regard to the report by the President-in-Office of the Council, Parliament has no essential criticisms. We can be nice for once. There is one basic issue, however, that I would like the President-in-Office of the Council to clarify. The Commissioner has talked about qualified majorities and codecision. The President-in-Office of the Council has not. Our understanding is that the relationship is automatic: anything voted upon by qualified majority in the Council must immediately also be subject to codecision with Parliament. I would be grateful if the President-in-Office of the Council could clarify this point.
Secondly, I would also ask him to clarify for the Assembly whether the distribution of seats in Parliament is currently a topic for debate at the Intergovernmental Conference, because here we are doing nothing but criticise the Council – which sometimes gives us ample cause for criticism – but we must not neglect our own responsibilities. I have already publicly condemned, here in this Chamber, our inability to distribute the small increase to 700 seats. I think we can also set an example, as we have done in the past, by distributing between large and small countries. I also think that we are not currently fulfilling our responsibilities if we are not capable of solving this problem. I am particularly addressing the groups that are blocking this decision in Parliament, starting with the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats.
Then there is the matter of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we all agree that the Charter is a very important document, which we all support and which, furthermore, is a symbol of collective identity, I cannot understand what we are going to do with the Charter. Are we going to keep it in a box? Are we going to save it for a rainy day? In my opinion, it should be the frontispiece of a future Constitution, but at the moment, what we could do and what could easily be achieved in Nice, is to include the Charter in the Treaty by means of an extremely simple link: Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union. I would ask the Commission and the Council to make a statement on this matter. This is an important topic for current and future Member States.
In this respect I would also like to address my colleagues in the European People’s Party – and I would ask Mr Poettering to listen to me – because what we advocate in this Assembly, we should also advocate outside it. It is also absolutely unacceptable that Mr Berlusconi’s party in the Italian Parliament voted against this Charter and that a Member of this Assembly used coarse, pre or post-fascist language in relation to the Charter. We must be coherent and uphold the Charter here and in our own national parliaments. We must do so because these values are essential for everyone.
In this respect, I would also ask that a clear announcement be made regarding the proposal we are making, as we believe it makes political sense.
In conclusion, Madam President, two final comments regarding fundamental matters of external policy. On the one hand, the presence of President Kostunica was an historic event. The important thing is that we help the Balkans to achieve stability, not instability. To this end, I believe that we should apply the same standards to all. We cannot ask Croatia to cooperate with the International Court and not demand the same of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We must find money – and here the Council has responsibilities – to assert our community of values and create a balanced, stabilising policy in the Balkans.
With regard to the Middle East, it is clear that one of the causes of the situation – not the only cause, as this matter is far more complex – is that the European Union in the past was vetoed as a potential mediator. The step that has been taken should be applauded, although it was in a situation in which responsibilities had to be shared. I believe that we must honour our commitment in one of the most tragic situations we are experiencing today."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples