Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.1.3-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, our group welcomes this morning’s debate with the Council and the Commission. We make no secret of the fact that we, the European Parliament, and our group in particular, are in broad agreement with the Commission on these matters, which is important if we are to succeed in our joint venture.
I have just one further comment to make regarding the timetable – as far as the subject matter is concerned, I am in full agreement with Commissioner Barnier: this sort of conference could start work in 2002. It could work through to the autumn of 2003 and then table its proposal to the governments. This would mean that the governments could meet in conference at the end of 2003, rather than in 2004, and state their views on these proposals, and that a new Treaty could be prepared ready for signing under the Irish Presidency in the spring of 2004. This would ensure that we do not run over into the European elections and into the period when the Commission’s mandate runs out.
One final comment, Madam President-in-Office: you spoke of the Community method and Robert Schuman. I am most grateful that you did, that you reminded us of one of the pioneers of Europe and of our group, because he stood for the Community method. It is precisely the small countries which stand to benefit from the Community method, because if the large countries alone opt for the intergovernmental method, then the small countries will go under, which is why it is important that we apply the Community method. Europe must be strong. Europe must be able to act. Europe must be democratic and transparent and, if you follow in Robert Schuman’s footsteps, then you will be on the right path.
(
However, I must say, Madam President-in-Office, as there has perhaps been a degree of friction over recent weeks, which is quite understandable and perfectly usual in politics, that I expressly acknowledge and respect the tone and atmosphere which you brought to this morning’s debate. I think that this internal attitude towards the future of Europe and cooperation between the institutions may be a good starting point, provided that deed follows word.
However, before we turn to the future, I have a direct request to make of the Swedish Presidency and the Council, which is now being represented by the Swedish Presidency. Sweden is renowned and we appreciate Sweden for the transparent and open ways of your wonderful country. But, please, use this fundamental openness and transparency to change the Council; make the Council more transparent in relation to the other institutions.
(
This is not intended as a criticism, merely as a statement of fact. Do not use your presidency just for administrative purposes; use your presidency to take a stand for greater transparency, more openness and – and this is no criticism of Sweden – to ensure that the Council attends Parliament more frequently. Yesterday during the motion, during legislative decisions, and this is not meant as a criticism of the Swedish Presidency, we sorely missed the Council. We would have liked to have heard the Council’s views, which is doubtless why our President intends to hammer out new rules with the Council, with the support of this House, to ensure that the Council attends the European Parliament more frequently. Surely it is not asking too much to expect a presidency which only lasts six months to attend plenary not just once, but two or three times, so that we can discuss our joint tasks.
Now to the follow-up to Nice. First: when you address the future, you have to be honest. Nice was not the greatest success; I do not want to go into all that again, but it has to be said. That is why I am critical on this point, but only on this point, of the Swedish Prime Minister’s letter of 7 March, which I otherwise welcome, in which he says that Nice represents a strong institutional basis for the future of the European Union. In our opinion, that is just not true and we shall continue to criticise it. We also ask that you have the courage to say as much, just like President Chirac of France did when he said here, in his capacity as President-in-Office, that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer the right way to set about reforming the European Union. This verdict is a verdict which all the governments of the European Union must come to and once we have this verdict, then we can find the right method and it is the method which I should like to address.
I was delighted to hear, Madam President-in-Office – if I address fewer comments to Commissioner Barnier, it is because we are in broad agreement – that you have an open mind on the question of the method, including the convention method. I am delighted to tell you that our group here in Parliament, the European People’s Party, has proposed a preparatory conference which would then table a proposal to the governments. This conference should start work in 2002. The method will not be decided under your presidency, but it is important for you to start paving the way towards Laeken. That is where the decisions will have to be taken. We believe that a preparatory conference attended by Members of the European Parliament, members of the national parliaments, governments and other delegates is a transparent instrument.
A great deal has been said about a steering committee. A steering committee would only make sense if it were both a sort of executive bureau of the conference and also fully involved in it and certainly the position of the chairman or chairpersons will play an important part, as it did at the fundamental rights convention under the chairmanship of the former German President Roman Herzog. If you want good results, you need a reasonable method."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples