Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.2.2-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I have three comments to make.
Firstly, one sometimes had the impression that at Biarritz there was an obsession with the debate between the smaller and the larger states. In a certain sense all this is quite natural. We are at last in the process of reopening the issue of major institutional balances and the way they would work within an enlarged Europe. The institutions on which the European Union is currently based were set up for three large countries and three small countries. This balance has not been revised since then. Indeed, the magic of the European Union is precisely its ability to foster alliances between small and large countries in the common interest. However, if the notion of a common interest is to work, each country must find its proper place.
Everyone knows that if a larger Member State does not feel itself to be adequately represented and feels unable to make its voice heard as loudly as it should be within the European institutions, it will look elsewhere, which is in the interests of neither the larger nor the smaller Member States. That is the reason why we hear so much talk of smaller and larger states. Beyond this, it would seem to me that the Biarritz Council scored several points on this issue, which is crucial to the future of the European Union and its decision-making procedures, and we can only welcome that.
The second issue that I would like to address is that of decision-making. Basically, if the European Union is not in a position to take decisions, it will no longer be in a position to govern. The markets alone will do this. So, if we want to be able to govern and decide matters, then decisions must be taken by a qualified majority, including those on non-discrimination. No one in this Parliament would understand it if no agreement on this issue was reached at Nice. I ask you in all sincerity, at a time when the Union is providing itself with a Charter of Fundamental Rights, would the Heads of State and Government reject the idea of decisions in this area being taken on a qualified majority? That would seem to me to be bordering on the ridiculous and I hope that headway can be made on this matter between now and Nice.
However, in parallel with the debate on qualified majority voting, there is the debate on closer cooperation. On this count, I consider it insufficient to say that the Community method must be safeguarded. We must say how, while remaining well aware that certain issues still have to be settled. We need to have further debate and focus our thoughts in this respect. We can say yes to Parliamentary control of closer cooperation, but how can this be put into effect without recreating conditions that are so restrictive that they do not allow this cooperation to be developed? These are questions that we still have to answer.
Lastly, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I believe that I have never as an MEP given up on anything so long as a glimmer of hope remained. We have taken on board what you said concerning the timetable for incorporating the Charter into the Treaties. For all that, it is essential that the Treaty adopted at Nice should include a reference to Article 6, for at least three reasons. Mr Méndez de Vigo has already referred to the content of Article 6 and to the inappropriateness of there simply being a reference to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in its Communication of 11 October, the Commission has just spelt out, quite correctly, the extent to which a judge to whom this Charter is submitted would be in a position to uphold its content, and would not be able to act as if this document did not exist. Consequently, should the Heads of State and Government say nothing at Nice, they would be leaving the door open to what others have called ‘government by the judges’.
Finally, it does not seem to me particularly rational for the President-in-Office of the Council to say that the Swedish Presidency will subsequently look at the action the Fifteen Member States want to take with regard to the Charter’s legal status. Are we to imagine that discussions on the drafting of the Treaty will reopen straight after Nice and that a new process of ratification by the fifteen national parliaments will then be embarked upon? I believe that to be unrealistic. There is a pressing need to equip the Union with a point of reference based on the content of this Charter. I hope we can still convince people of this and make progress, in order to win the day on this issue at Nice."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples