Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.6.2-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in the coming weeks we shall have to carry out a rigorous, in-depth analysis of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Conference and the fundamental questions which it has thrown up. I will not go back to the comments of the different speakers regarding the method nor the other subjects such as those covered by Mr Brok just now.
Of the fundamental questions, the first is that the Nice conclusions do not guarantee on an institutional level the necessary continuity and the necessary development of the process of integration into the larger Union which is about to come into being. Therefore, even though we may not call them leftovers, the issues which were not adequately resolved in Nice will inevitably arise again. I refer to the changeover in qualitatively essential areas to qualified majority voting and to the very procedures for taking majority decisions. Time will show us which issues we need to return to, whether we like it or not.
The second fundamental issue is political rather than institutional. The atmosphere of the Nice Council, the lack of openness, as President Prodi said, the blinkered vision characterising the attitudes of the different governments – the narrow-minded defence of national interests or policies – explain, it is sad to say, the root of the problem: a serious loss of the sense of shared European interest, of a common European vision.
Well, the appropriate responses to both the institutional and political fundamental questions, which are our most negative legacy from the Nice Council, must be sought in dialogue, in the evaluation and
development process which must be pursued under the title "the future of the Union". We must reflect seriously on what has happened. We managed to avoid an open crisis which would have threatened enlargement by coming to a last minute agreement on the Treaty, but we are left with a latent crisis which will have to be dealt with.
Building a unified Europe requires far-sighted vision and coherence. In response to President Chirac, we are not calling for haste; we are asking not to have to take one step forwards and then one backwards, not to call for promotion of the drafting and proclamation of the Charter when we do not then dare to include it in the Treaty, not to call for the new wording of the Convention to be produced when we then do not even dare to suggest it as a potential post-Nice procedure. We want the objective of constitutionalisation to be called by its name; we are asking for a response, with a clear, coherent vision of the future of Europe, to the disappointments and fears which are spreading amongst the citizens over the current or future nature of the Union.
Mr Prodi, Commissioner Barnier, this is our task. We have every confidence that Parliament and the Commission will proceed together in this direction, as they have done throughout this difficult year 2000."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples