Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.3.2-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the interested citizen who wants to know how the EU is run is scarcely going to pore over the Treaty of Amsterdam as bedtime reading. If by chance she should nonetheless do so, it is doubtful if she would be any the wiser. Not even very committed EU cognoscenti could easily plough through those Treaties which in fact regulate a whole range of our common activities here in Europe.
The Treaties are difficult to understand, at times contradictory, difficult to read and uninspiring. Beautiful and important European values are jumbled together with technical clauses in an unholy mess. This is really quite unacceptable. If we want to increase knowledge about the European project, as well as commitment to it, there is a minimum requirement that it must be simple to find out how the Union is run and why it is run in that way. That is not the case today, a fact which Mr Duhamel’s report does an excellent job of bringing out.
Following the Nice Summit, which we all hope will be successful, it is important to take this next step in order to create a more democratic Union. It is time to review the Treaties. For my group, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, it is important that, to begin with, the European Treaties should be made more citizen-friendly. This means simplifying, rearranging and pruning them. The proposal from the Florence institute suggests a place to start, but the next step is to create a proper European constitution.
The people of Europe need, deserve and, according to opinion polls, want a common constitution clearly expressing the EU’s values and objectives and clarifying the division of power and responsibility both between the institutions and between the institutions and the Member States. People’s rights ought to be regulated by incorporating the conclusions from the Convention. This is an exciting process. It is certainly not simple, but it is incredibly important. Naturally, people must be enabled to participate in this work, especially citizens of the candidate countries which will hopefully be members in a few years’ time.
The work must under no circumstances be used as an excuse to delay enlargement. A constitution is a matter for the
of Europe. Work on the constitution ought to be informed by an ambition both to simplify matters and to remove some of the tasks carried out by the EU. This is necessary if the EU is to be able to function in the future. A clearer distribution of powers is required, as well as a clearer definition of the subsidiarity principle.
We learned a very great deal from the work of the Convention. It is a working method which, with certain changes, ought to be used to give people a still more important place in the process. A future European constitution must not be a product off the Brussels drawing board.
Vaclav Havel said in this Chamber, and Commissioner Barnier quoted him recently, that he wanted to see a European constitution which could be handed out to, and understood by, every eleven year-old in Europe. I think that is a very commendable objective. The decision to embark upon the work must be taken today. It is a hopeful sign that the French Presidency is favourably disposed to this. I shall now do what I can to convince my fellow countrymen to run with the ball during Sweden’s Presidency."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples