Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.2.2-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like to contribute to this debate by recapitulating on some of the interventions, rather than by replying to them. I have very little to add to what Commissioner Barnier has said, except perhaps to mention a slight difference of opinion over meteorology. The weather at Biarritz was in fact quite bad that weekend. I know the Basque coast very well and was rather disappointed for those participating. One might have expected somewhat better weather conditions, but I feel that the climate inside the European Council, at which I was present from start to finish, was a little better than the Commissioner has said. In this respect I would like to respond to what Mr Poettering has said about the rift between the larger and smaller states.
I will end with the questions asked by virtually all the speakers concerning the binding nature of the Charter, and am anxious to make myself clearly understood on his matter.
Firstly, all the members of the European Council are happy with the Charter, both from the standpoint of the method used and from that of its content. I will very quickly repeat that the Convention method is an innovative one which enables several legitimate authorities to be combined, the national parliaments, the European Parliament, the Commission and the governments. It is therefore something on which we could perhaps draw in the future when addressing other issues. The content of this Charter could indeed be interpreted in several different ways: the glass is either half full or half empty, it is a compromise. I see this compromise as a rather dynamic, gradual and progressive one. This text will stand out because it is clear and because it is accessible. It is the first European Union document that the citizens can consult without feeling completely alienated from its content. That really is something valuable, as was emphasised by all the members of the European Council.
There remains, of course, the question of its legal power. I will make no secret of the fact that we are engaged in a process, one in which we are well versed, of having the Charter proclaimed by each of the three institutions. It has to be said that within the European Council there are a number of delegations, and I might even say a large number of delegations, that are opposed to the Charter being binding in nature, and therefore to it being incorporated into the Treaties as early as Nice. Given the circumstances, how could one possibly imagine that this constitutes a forward development?
We will strive for this change, as our Presidential role dictates, but I would not want to lead Parliament to believe that developments that cannot come about will come about. I do not think it will happen. It seems to me that we must adopt a gradual approach to this matter: see to it that this Charter is proclaimed at Nice by the three institutions and then go into its legal future since I, like many people here, believe that it will indeed be the preamble to a future constitutional treaty, but let us then address this as a constituent issue. In reality only one process or one procedure is still to be addressed and that is the reference to Article 6. I have already had occasion in this House to tell you that I was in favour of this. Little was said about the issue at the European Council, but I had the impression that one delegation – you can probably guess which – was reticent, as it is opposed to the Charter having any legal effect or being in any way binding.
Lastly, in response to Mrs Ainardi, I see it as very difficult and even quite dangerous to open up the Charter package and discuss its content again, as I do not know what the end result of this re-examination would be. I strongly believe that this would be taking a step backwards rather than a step forwards. Now that we have this Charter, let us accept it for what it is, as the stage we have reached today, a first step that is subsequently to be confirmed and developed by taking others, whether in respect of its content or its legal status.
It is true that we arrived at a juncture where marked differences of opinion were evident in the ministerial discussions. The intention of the Presidency was, on the contrary, to help ensure that this debate could go ahead in an open manner, in such a way as to enable us to move on from it, without the very same rift opening up again. Judging from the feedback on the most crucial discussion, the one that took place when the Heads of State and Government met for dinner, it did indeed force matters into the open so that solutions could then be sought.
You can in any case rest assured, Mr President, that it is the genuine desire of the Presidency of the Council to seek out a compromise that suits everyone. Accordingly, the President of the French Republic, the President of the European Council and the French Prime Minister asked me to visit, before the President of the French Republic, the ten countries which are currently asking for only one commissioner. I immediately went to see the Belgian Prime Minister yesterday evening and moreover believe that he too can sense the Biarritz spirit. The determination to heal the rift between the smaller and larger countries is an integral part of this spirit.
I do not, in this respect, share the feelings of the Chairman of the Group of the European People’s Party on the possibility of ‘one Commissioner per Member State’. I am aware of the criticisms that you have addressed to the German Chancellor. I am no more qualified than you to meddle in German internal affairs, but feel that this position is extremely consistent and if I am not mistaken also moves into line with what the Commission wants. A strong and effective Commission means a Commission that has even greater legitimacy by virtue of representing the general interest of the Community, and not by dint of a perceived intrusion of the intergovernmental phenomenon into the way it operates. When we proposed a rotation on an equal footing, it was precisely to show that the idea was not to pit the smaller and larger countries against one other but that, in a Commission with a ceiling on commissioners, those countries which we incorrectly refer to as ‘large’ and those that we equally incorrectly call ‘small’ would be represented on a perfectly equal footing. This is the clear position of the French delegation, and this is clearly the preferable solution.
What I noted in Brussels yesterday, was that an idea is beginning to gain credence, that of having one Commissioner per Member State, which will probably be adopted at Nice, perhaps placing a ceiling on the number of commissioners at a later date. I therefore believe that we will clear up this ambiguity and that we must do so while effectively ensuring that the Commission continues to be a strong body. In fact, as Mr Barnier has said extremely clearly, a Commission packed to the rafters and representing the Member States alone would lose credibility and legitimacy. I share the Commissioner’s views. The objective is truly one of strengthening the Community framework. In order to do this, I would reiterate, in the same vein as my response to Mr Prodi at our last meeting, that we must upgrade each of the institutions: the Commission of course, the European Parliament of course, and the Council too. This is the balance that we must strike.
I would also like to reassure Mr Poettering as to the actions of the French Prime Minister. The day after Biarritz, the Prime Minister, as some of those present can testify, appeared in person – something that does not always happen – and at length before the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, the parliamentary body that brings together members of the national parliaments, the European parliament and the parliaments of candidate countries. Furthermore, the French Parliament held an hour-long question session that was broadcast at peak viewing time and was specifically dedicated to topical European issues, and thus to the results of the Biarritz European Council, during which the Prime Minister spoke at length. You know how things work in the media. You might say something on Monday or Tuesday, but this does not necessarily mean that you will be questioned about it on the Thursday. You can therefore rest assured of the French Prime Minister’s resolve as regards this Presidency issue.
I would like to briefly return to matters of external trade policy, as this is a very serious matter. France’s stance on this is no secret, and neither are the positions of a number of other Member States who feel that, when it comes to the field of services, especially cultural matters and even more particularly audiovisual matters, a cautious approach is called for since issues of identity come into play, and I am talking about issues of identity and not exceptions.
Mr Barón Crespo asked several questions which primarily concern the link between qualified majority voting and codecision. I am aware that this is an issue which the European Parliament quite rightly views as very important, and must make clear to the House that I only dealt with the bare bones of the issue of course, given the limited speaking time available to me, but that this issue does not present any difficulties. Moreover, as I to some extent hinted at during our debate prior to Biarritz, the Presidency sees the extension of qualified majority voting as going hand in hand with codecision. As I am sure everyone here will be pleased to hear, that does not currently constitute a problem area for the Intergovernmental Conference.
I would also like to return to the issue of the number of Members of the European Parliament. This issue was partially settled at Amsterdam in Article 189 of the Treaty, which set a ceiling of 700 MEPs. We have started to exchange ideas on this question, from which it has emerged that all the Member States want to maintain this ceiling after enlargement. One delicate issue is still to be resolved, that of how to allocate seats within this ceiling. I can state that a number of delegations, those from Germany, Britain, France and Italy and also from Holland, would like to see a proportional reduction and others a linear reduction. We shall have to see, as this will clearly be a sensitive issue. I would just like to express my disappointment at the fact that the European Parliament has dispensed with drawing up the report that it had announced and which was to have been the subject of an oral question today. Indeed I feel that this would have helped the Member States and not least the Council to form an opinion, as no one could have more definite ideas on this matter than the Members of the European Parliament themselves. Perhaps it is not too late to do this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples