Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.4.2-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the European Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, finally the Summit concluded with a result. For now we have got out of the tight spot. Now we need to look at the text carefully in Parliament.
At the same time, the declaration on enlargement – which is a positive one – says that the applicant countries will be able to join the Union at the end of 2002, and the Heads of Government of the countries that are in negotiations have welcomed Nice. Now we have to take something into account: this is like when a child invites his friends to a birthday party and it is not sure whether there is enough room in the house or whether there is enough money for the food. We have to be responsible in our commitments.
How have we come to this situation? It is too easy to blame the President-in-Office of the Council, especially as the majority of the political families represented here are also represented in the Council. And we have come to this situation because the method of the Intergovernmental Conference no longer works.
How can the Union make constitutional decisions by staying up for three nights? What was the point of eleven months of Intergovernmental Conference, two conclaves and countless meetings of the General Affairs Council?
I would like to point out, by the way, Mr President-in-Office of the European Council, that this is paid for by taxpayers.
How can decisions that reflect the dual legitimacy of the Union be made by only one side? I would like to make an appeal to you: no more Intergovernmental Conferences behind closed doors.
In the declaration on the future of the Union – which I welcome on behalf of my Group – for the first time there is a mention of the need to renew its working methods: the need for a wider debate in which all the parties involved can take part. There is already such a method. It is the convention method: nine months, a happy delivery...
...while in Nice, we still do not know what the child is like. And I really think that we should use the convention method to determine the future of the Union.
For now, Mr President-in-Office of the European Council, I can tell you what is on the Council web site, or at least what was on it at 10.00 this morning: the Treaty will be available when it has been approved. Please ask the Council staff to at least update the text. I think that ‘something’ was approved in Nice.
To conclude, Mr President-in-Office of the European Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is certain that, as far as the subjects of Nice that you yourself, Mr Chirac, pointed out – the European Company Statute, the Social Agenda, mad cow disease, maritime safety – there are sufficient causes to say that the Summit was a success.
As far as the institutional matters are concerned, however, we will have to study them and make a judgment. Today, we cannot take a decision. We want to make a positive contribution, but now – and I will now conclude, Madam President – in order to live up to our ambitions, what we have to do is ask the Swedish Presidency to initiate the process of debate, in which we need precision timing, because it is what this Union needs, positively affirming our defence policy and developing the Community method.
This is the challenge that we now face.
In any case, the fact that an agreement has been reached is an achievement in itself. Because it was not about residue, leftovers or ends to tie up from what was discussed in Amsterdam and not agreed on. It was about fundamental issues for the governance of Europe, and we can now start working on this.
We are taking your word on the content of the agreement but, from what we are gradually discovering, there is not much cause for satisfaction. It should be pointed out that, in principle, the aim of the Intergovernmental Conference was to improve the functioning of the Union in order to achieve enlargement. I am afraid that we have before us a compromise between national interests that has been hammered out all in one go, at night, which will make it even more difficult to make Community decisions in the future.
Not only is the unanimity rule being maintained in a few crucial areas, but we also now have three types of qualified majority. The level of 62% of the population has been replaced, according to some, by 71% and, according to others, by 73.49% in order to achieve a qualified majority. The percentage is so high that it amounts to re-establishing a veto, especially for the largest countries.
This is a step backwards that applies to all areas of Community life, and I predict, Mr President-in-Office of the European Council, that our fellow citizens – and I am afraid also the Members of Parliament and the Heads of Government – are going to have to go back to school for lessons in arithmetic.
We will have to look very carefully at the role that has been allocated to the Commission and Parliament in the Union’s decision-making process. If we want the Union to reflect the interests of all of its Member States and all of its peoples as a community of values, according to the Community method, the institutions that can guarantee this are the Commission and Parliament, acting within the framework of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If those institutions are weakened and the Charter remains outside of the Treaty, how are we going to bring Europe closer to its citizens?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples