Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.2.2-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the space of a few minutes I should like, not to answer all the relevant speeches, but to make a few observations on just some of them to reiterate our general approach. Above all, the speeches of all the Members who spoke after Mr Cox illustrated the problem of always working with priorities, taking them all together rather than one by one. It is clear that, if taken out of context, the huge number of 495 points in our detailed programme might seem an absurd proposition, but sometimes we have to break things down in order to show that we are being practical and then, as this morning, we need to outline practical priorities in order to present the right idea of what we are actually doing. I also believe that a government needs at times to be pedantic, at times tedious: we try to be both as little as possible but it is part of the job.
I would like to make one more observation. We have undertaken to achieve two things: to associate the candidate countries – although even the meaning of the word 'associate' has not been defined, but it will probably not include voting rights; we do not yet know. This we must do, and we must accordingly think about the procedures necessary for achieving it.
In short, we agree that we have to go beyond the four Nice points. Let us therefore first sort out the nature of the task in hand, and then we can find a name: I would be very happy to call it an assembly, a council or a committee, I do not mind. In any case, I believe we must be guided by the nature of the task ahead of us.
Another set of concerns has emerged concerning the issue of subsidiarity and proportionality. I can assure you that this is a firm commitment of the Commission and it is not incompatible with the fact that, sometimes, we also have to make more specific recommendations
An interesting example has been given. For goodness’ sake, we do not have to standardise
forms, which differ from country to country, but it is a help which we very often need to give our young workers for their careers. This does not have to be compulsory but it is undoubtedly a tool which helps them to move from country to country more easily. So there we are: it is having the good sense to see that some of the things we regulate may even appear absurd, but they are done in support of the decisions we take. Then there are others, many others, which are completely pointless.
Finally, the emphasis was placed - by Mr Fiori and Mr Sakellariou - and this gives me great pleasure - on the Mediterranean. We have not discussed this topic much this year, which is understandable because we have been fully occupied with enlargement and the Balkans – and rightly so. However, there is a very specific programme for the Mediterranean: last year I went to Israel and Palestine; this last month to Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia; last week to Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon. I can assure you that there is a desire, a need, a call for Europe, not only to solve economic problems but also with a certain gratitude for the support we have been giving these peoples. However, there are two new important points which are being requested by everyone: the first is the change from a bilateral approach to something more, a multilateral approach; this will help regional cooperation, although it cannot be extended to the whole area but will have to operate in groupings, the Maghreb on one side, the Mashraq on the other. What is coming through is a strong desire for a Europe which is seen, by its very nature – precisely because it is Europe - to have relinquished all traces of a colonial past and any legacy which could cause tension, and which is seen as a new proposal and, above all, a model of cooperation they can follow.
The second point: a desire for Europe to be involved in their peace negotiations. Clearly, international issues will dictate whether there can be an answer to this question. I place it before Parliament, because it has affected me greatly: the request was clear, explicit, motivated by the fact that we understand their problems, that we encounter these problems every day. I have very strong feelings about the Mediterranean, not because I was born in that region but because I want to remind people that coexistence, peace, war, and compatibility between regions and cultures appear, in the main, to originate there. I would like to remind everyone of this, both because it is already a well-defined path and the Spanish Presidency is planning - we have had extensive discussions about it with the Prime Minister – a Summit on the Mediterranean during the Spanish Presidency next year. The preparation of this year, therefore, is a perfect opportunity to integrate this policy.
Regarding sustainable development, I agree with what has been said. I would like, once again, to emphasise that this is an extraordinarily important but extremely difficult matter. Very often, in fact, we use this expression simply to save face, but sustainable development means taking decisions which are extremely complex and difficult, decisions which concern industry, our daily way of life, housing, or the use of energy. It is something of great importance and consequence and our great responsibility, which we cannot avoid if we want to do more than – I repeat – merely save face, something which can be done in other ways.
I have the same concerns over emigration and internal and external security policy.
Finally, I strongly welcome the appeal made to me by some Members not to delay enlargement. I have to say: we are not delaying it. The Swedish Presidency has given great vigorous and personal impetus to this issue; Commissioner Verheugen has put an enormous amount of energy into organising the negotiation groups; they are relentlessly working through the various chapters. The great political decisions – agriculture, environment, structural funds – are now reaching the critical point, which will involve a very difficult period, a period in which political wisdom will have to come strongly to the fore, for it is this that will give the final impetus to the great process in progress. Earlier on, I quoted Kofi Annan, but, in fact, the process of enlargement itself is regarded by the United Nations and by everyone as a supreme message of peace and civilisation to the whole world. We must resolve the practical problems to make this possible.
I would like to finish with a word on the invitation made to me by one of you, Mr Goebbels. I will say that the Commission is here not only to give opinions but also to make proposals on these matters and, if at all possible, also to take up Mr Goebbels' call to be the architects of the new structure: naturally with your help, your cooperation and also your scrutiny.
Today and in recent sittings we have presented a strategic scheduling programme. I am sure that Parliament will appreciate that I have pointed out the strict priorities, but these strict priorities will then have to be followed by detailed documents which will be extraordinarily tedious. But this is politics: first comes the vision, then the practicalities.
Secondly, everyone – including Mr Hänsch and many other Members – said that the Commission/Parliament report should be a question of working together. Mr Hänsch even talked of producing a single document. I do not know if this would be useful; of course, we will have to work together exceptionally well if we are to reach a common will, a single decision. Moreover, it does not matter whether the standpoints from which these decisions are taken are different or whether they can coexist in a single document; the truth of the matter is that we – in our committees and in our daily work – constantly perform a task of convergence, study and analysis, of laborious recording of the issues, something we are doing now.
For the moment, this must be carried out within a full agenda. This is the third problem which emerged this morning, as was pointed out by Mr McMillan-Scott, Mrs Maij-Weggen and many others. We do indeed have a complicated calendar: we all speak of 2004, but 2004 will be a year of radical change for Parliament and the Commission. If we really want this process to go ahead in an integrated, organised manner, it is clear that it will need to be completed by the end of 2003. I am only bringing this up as a problem we must think about but, clearly, in the spring of 2004 the electoral campaign will begin, in June the elections will be held, and then there will be the installation of the new Commission, which will not assume power until January 2005. It is therefore a year of change, and I believe that Parliament will want to play a full part in this major political change in Europe.
I am bringing this problem up, therefore, because I feel that it is now inescapable. I also feel that such a change cannot be carried out over two parliaments or at a time of transition or a time when the Commission has no power or, at least, is having its powers drained or gradually exhausted.
I am raising the issue as a problem which does not yet have a solution, but I think that it is only right to discuss it, because a date has been set - 2004 - which must be taken into consideration; it will lead to inconsistencies and problems which must be taken into account if we are to come any closer to finding a solution.
Mr Swoboda, Mr Hänsch, Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Corbett have pointed out another major problem area, upon which I would like to avoid any misunderstanding, regarding the structuring of the vigorous debate on Europe. We are all basically in agreement regarding Laeken; it remains to be seen whether we shall manage to make a success of it and to genuinely involve civil society in the debate as we have promised. In any case, we agree that Parliament and Commission must work together to guide this debate.
As regards Laeken, I would really like to avoid any misunderstanding: in my view, the time has come to establish the full structure of the debate on the future of Europe. I reiterate what I have said and I would like to specify that we must create an interinstitutional body with a similar structure to that of the Convention which worked on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I repeat: it must be similar in structure but otherwise different, probably smaller and more practical. I am speaking now only of the model. But we must go further than that previous model. I go along with the suggestion made by Michel Barnier and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. This body will have to make proposals which do not necessarily require unanimity because there will come a time when we will have to make such far-reaching proposals that it will be difficult to achieve unanimity. We must therefore envisage a different body having the same objectives.
There are - and we must work on this - some points that are essential. Let me repeat them: that the European Parliament is involved and that the national parliaments, the governments and the Commission are involved as well. This is the essence and the strength of Europe. Of course, I agree with the objections I have heard - that it cannot be a very large body – and, given that there are four administrative structures to be represented, it will therefore be difficult to keep the numbers involved in this institutional structure, this decision-making body down. However, I believe that this is the great task we must take on: broad representation of all four administrative structures but a sufficiently manageable size to be able to take decisions; moreover, working on a majority basis and not unanimity, or we shall be paralysed. In this direction, I believe that we shall be able to work together and produce more definitive proposals."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples