Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.1.3-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to begin by presenting my thanks for a good debate with many constructive contributions. I seem to have noticed that Mr Poettering, Mr Barón Crespo, Mr Cox and others who have taken part in the debate are still in favour of a broad political debate on issues of both content and form, and I think this is good.
Let me now comment on some other issues. Mr Cox wondered why I said that the Treaties should be simplified without changing the content. I reply that I was quoting the Nice Decision.
To Mr Barón Crespo I would like to say that it is clear that we must go out into the real world. I myself have taken the debate to many Swedish schools. I presume that you others too have also visited schools. I think it is important that, here too, Parliament is really involved in the debate on content. What schoolchildren and the general public will ask us will naturally be questions which are very much wider in scope than those we have discussed here today. I would also like to say to Mr Barón Crespo that of course Parliament was invited to take part in launching the future of Europe right from the start.
To Mrs Frassoni I would like to say that when it comes to the question on civil society, there must unfortunately have been some problem with the translation, for the Swedish Presidency has exhibited a very great interest in civil society. In my introductory speech, I cited examples of major conferences we are organising in Sweden and in other countries. Ahead of the summit in Gothenburg we are organising three broad forums arranged by civil society. We are also working on town twinning to a great extent and are doing a great deal of work at many schools and universities. I personally have several school classes as reference groups, which I can recommend, by the way.
Mr Bonde brought up the subject of the website and said that only Prime Minister Persson and other high-up figures are allowed to write on it. I recommend that he go and look at it as there are already many contributions there. Among other things in my introductory speech, I quoted contributions from Denmark and the UK – opinions of ordinary citizens in both countries.
This is naturally an important debate for the future. I expect we will return to the discussion of the methods and the convention and how we can best broaden the debate. But it is also important that we have a broad debate on the factual issues, i.e. on how Europe really will be able to address globalisation and on how Europe can become a strong force on employment, environmental issues and the matters we will be discussing later today. So when it comes to the future of Europe, let us discuss both methods and substance.
I would like to comment on some of the contributions and begin with the first speaker, Mr Poettering. I repeat: Openness and access are a key issue for the Swedish Presidency. I know that Parliament and the Swedish Presidency have a great deal in common in this respect and I hope that we will be able to help each other to achieve as much openness and access as possible. Naturally, we also need to carry the Member States with us and agree on this.
Then there is the major question of the next Intergovernmental Conference. When it comes to the decision itself, according to the Treaty there is no method other than the Intergovernmental Conference. It is important that we remember this, just as Mrs Berès said just now. I understand that Parliament is very interested, as I am, in the important discussion on how we will reach a decision – the debate we will have before the decision, how we will prepare for the debate, and the role which might be played by the convention method. These issues were addressed by the initial speakers.
The discussion in Parliament shows that we must have a broad debate on these matters, but I think it is too early today to reach a definite position as there are both advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages are clear – an open debate and broad participation – but here too questions can be raised. Who is to be involved – Member States, candidate countries and organisations, and if so, which? We cannot reach a final position on this today.
Some have also put forward the disadvantages. With very many participants, the process can become unwieldy. Furthermore, the decision-making process itself can be unclear, as the convention submits proposals and the Intergovernmental Conference has to reach decisions. Even if one advocates a convention, one must also discuss dealing with its disadvantages. We should therefore discuss this properly and in detail.
The Council has not said yes but nor has the Council objected, and we have definitely not said that we are afraid of a convention. We have said that we must now be able to discuss both the factual issues surrounding the future of Europe and the methods – including the question of a convention.
Just as Mr Brok and others said, the European Parliament is naturally involved in this entire debate. You played a part in initiating the debate on the future. You played a part in the launch and you are also among those participating in the website. I do not know exactly where Mr Elles has been looking, but I can guarantee that Parliament is represented. Furthermore, there are lots of contributions, so if Parliament was not represented there today, it can only be an oversight.
This debate is a further example of Parliament’s being involved, but we would also like to see the view of Parliament as a whole on the debate on the future, and we will get that in May. Therefore, I think it is important that this also be included as part of the on-going discussion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples