Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.1.3-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Madam Minister, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we too wish to hear the proposals and suggestions made by the Members of Parliament but, if I may, I would like to sum up the position of the European Commission on this major debate, which was promised at Nice in the early hours of the morning, when the ink had not yet dried on the agreement. It was almost as if the Heads of State and Government were not really satisfied with what they had just done after three days of negotiations. So they decided, at the same time, to call for a broader-based and more in-depth debate on the future of the European Union.
On the other hand, we also know that we must make careful preparations for this IGC and, without doubt, differently than in the case of the preceding IGCs in Amsterdam and Nice. We must translate the challenges of the public debate into concrete proposals for the revision of the Treaties. The structure or the competent body must, I believe, find inspiration precisely in the model or the precedent of the Convention thanks to which, in the course of a few months, the European Union adopted a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was solemnly proclaimed in Nice. In other words, this structure or this body must not only be involved in debate but also in work and putting forward proposals, bringing together the different sources of the democratic legitimacy of Europe: representatives of the Members States, the European Parliament, national parliaments and the European Commission.
Having said that, many questions remain open. What will the decision-making procedures of this body or this future convention be? What will its composition be? Most notably, what place will be reserved for the representatives of the candidate countries? What will its mandate be? Does this preparation have to follow the public debate or is it preferable to undertake it in parallel throughout the process leading up to the IGC?
The Commission is very attentive to the replies that the European Parliament is giving and will give to these different questions of procedure. And we ourselves are working on this. I also think, Madam President, that our proposals, yours and ours, must be brought into line as closely as possible in the run-up to the European Council in Laeken. And so I think we must step up the work done together by our two institutions, in consultation of course with the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies. To this end, it will also be essential that the structure called upon to accommodate the debate is not a place reserved for experts alone, but rather a permeable structure which is open to external contributions.
Finally, having talked about the principles and the method, I would like to say a few words about the agenda for this debate. Throughout recent years and this very long round of interinstitutional negotiations which began in Maastricht and ended, at least temporarily, in Nice, the European Parliament and the Commission have always united their efforts to ensure that real reform can see the light of day. And at this stage, Madam President, I want to pay tribute to you and to thank you as well as Chairman Napolitano and the members of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs for the intelligent work you have carried out in close cooperation with us. This was especially true, I think, of the last IGC, on the occasion of which, in its resolutions of November 1999 and February 2000, Parliament had expressed the desire to discuss global reform of the institutions in the same spirit as the Commission. I think we must now keep this convergence intact, even if this means that, beyond our work together, we have to open doors and windows, stretch out a hand, listen and participate in a much broader debate.
If we really want to address all the challenges facing the Europe of the future, the next IGC cannot settle for simply examining the four issues mentioned in the Nice annex, which are constitutional in nature. In all honesty, some of these four issues, at least two in my opinion, may have a negative or even a regressive impact on the level of integration of the European Union, if they are tackled in the wrong way. So let us not be afraid to tackle these four issues and let us not tackle just these four issues. On these four issues, then, which are simplification of the Treaties, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the debate on powers and the place of national parliaments in the European architecture, let us be careful not to undermine the Community acquis or weaken the Community method by tackling them in an inappropriate manner.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, to successfully turn this public debate into discussions which are necessarily more technical and precise at the next IGC would be a measure of our success in achieving a more ambitious reform than that obtained in Nice. It would also be an effective remedy to counteract the fears and all the prejudices which these fears underline or support and which some people bandy about to slow down the progress of European integration. For these two reasons at least, which may be crucially important in the runup to the enlargement of the Union, the European Commission, its President and all the members of the College of Commissioners will leave no stone unturned to breathe life into this major debate which was promised in Nice by the Heads of State and Government.
(
Less than a week ago, the Swedish Presidency, together with the future Belgian Presidency, invited Parliament and the Commission to participate in this debate.
In a broader sense, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission looks forward to and will encourage this debate on European issues. The Commission had already structured its approach a year ago, as I am sure you remember, by proposing, with you and with your support, a dialogue on Europe which was to be a first step. However, for this debate to achieve the objectives laid down in the joint declaration signed on 7 March by Nicole Fontaine, your President, Göran Persson, Guy Verhofstadt and Romano Prodi to highlight the challenges facing the European Union and encourage proposals, it is necessary to define the principles, the method and the agenda of this debate. In the few weeks ahead of us, let us take the time to work on these principles, this method and the agenda. This is, and will continue to be, the subject of work we will be carrying out together, especially in Parliament and the Commission, throughout the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies, as we must achieve a high level of ambition concerning this debate and future reforms in Laeken.
A basic principle, first of all: it is the content of the debate, the future of the Union, which must inspire the form of this debate and remain its priority. What sort of Europe do we want in the future? What do we want to do together? What will our plan be? Do we want more integration or not? Do we or do we not want a more political Europe? I will add another question: how do we reform the Community model?
Even if it seems difficult to find simple answers to these complex issues, and perhaps for that very reason, the debate must enable our citizens to become aware of them and participate in it.
The first principle is therefore that of transparency and of the objectivity with which this debate must be conducted. We must not deny, indeed we must encourage, the expression of contradictory opinions. We know that, in each of our Member States, opinions are diverse and often contradictory. In order to respect the principle of transparency, however, we must ask disturbing questions, as I have just said.
The second principle is that of proximity. Such a debate cannot be joined correctly if it is conducted solely from Brussels or Strasbourg. There is the Internet, of course, which today is an irreplaceable information and dialogue tool, and this debate is already open on the website, even though, I admit, this site is far from perfect. However, dialogue over the Internet is not enough. The European debate must be opened up to people where they live, where they work, where they study, and to their national and regional elected representatives. So, it must, of course, take place at a European level and be based first and foremost on the debates organised in each Member State at the most appropriate level which is, from my point of view, the level which is closest to the people of Europe. If the Community institutions can make a contribution to the organisation of the debate – and the Commission is playing and will continue to play its part in this – these national debates will first of all have to be organised by the Member States.
The third principle could be that of anticipation. Even though the candidate countries are not yet members of the European Union, they soon will be in a matter of years. The future of this Union, therefore, concerns them here and now as much as it does existing Member States. I believe that we must find a way to ensure that they are involved in the debate; that they take on an active role.
After the principles, ladies and gentlemen, we now come to the method. The final decision-making stage of this debate which, as you have said, Madam Minister, we hope will be as short as possible, will, of course, be the Intergovernmental Conference in 2004. We hope it will take place as early as possible in 2004, as was suggested by President Romano Prodi. It is only by holding an Intergovernmental Conference as provided for in the Treaties that the Treaties can be reformed or changed. We know now that this is the only possible method."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples