Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-232"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.15.3-232"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The point of a federation is that each Member State has sovereign powers to decide on its type of constitution and state structure. Just as I am loath to let Europe decide on internal arrangements for the Federal Republic of Germany, I am equally loath to dictate how others should organise their own country. The last thing I want is to impose a federal solution on, say, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic Republic or the Kingdom of Spain or, one day, the Republic of Hungary, which is not wanted. It is precisely because we do not want a centralised state that we need a constitution.
The Council of Ministers should become a chamber of state, in which each country votes and is represented by its government. This chamber would safeguard the sovereignty of the nation states. The European Parliament – you, honourable Members – should become the citizens’ chamber. Both chambers should have equal decision-making powers in all legislative areas.
A great deal of criticism about Europe sticks to the Commission, and often rightly so. But often the Commission is used as a scapegoat and the hunt for scapegoats is everyone’s favourite pastime!
I recognise the tendency of almost all national governments to brand decisions which they themselves have taken at European level as the monstrous invention of European regulatory mania ...
... when they come up against opposition in their own country, as I am sure you are aware. However, that does nothing to mitigate justified criticism that, given its importance, the Commission lacks democratic credentials for its work and we must change this.
As you know, there are two models for this: either the people directly elect the Commission president or the Commission president is elected by the two chambers of Parliament.
What is the function of a constitution in a political community? A "grammar of freedom" and, especially for us in Europe – a "grammar of solidarity". In it the sovereign power, i.e. the people, set out the values to which they are committed, the areas in which they delegate their powers, and to whom, and how they wish to organise and limit these powers. Finally, a constitution regulates who is responsible for what. The principles of a constitution for a European federation of nation states are the same. It should consist of three sections. The first section should contain the Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the Nice Summit.
I prefer the parliamentary model, whereby the Commission can count on a parliamentary majority.
But irrespective of which route is taken towards a constitution, a stronger parliament with two chambers and a Commission with better democratic credentials can give new, decisive momentum to the European idea.
The citizens of Europe will be more interested in what is going on in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg, they will identify more closely with it, even if they disagree with certain decisions. A stronger parliament would, I am sure, also help the parties to be European parties in fact and not just in name.
The reform of the European institutions would also help to bring about broader publicity at European level, which we sorely need. There are already issues which concern people all over Europe. Just think of the euro, its internal stability and its external value. Just think of peace in our corner of the world, the desire for healthy food or the rules governing transfers of football players within Europe.
We must ensure during the constitutional debate that the Commission continues to represent the Community’s interests.
This mainstay of the European unification process, the Commission’s right of initiative, must stay.
Debates over recent months have shown that the intergovernmental method has reached the end of its useful life.
And we are still only a Europe of the Fifteen! We all know that politics are a question not just of the right objectives but of how they can best be achieved. So how should the route towards a European constitution be constructed, what shape should the "process for the future of Europe", as it is so aptly called, take?
The debate on the future of Europe should be broader than the debate held in a classic type of Intergovernmental Conference.
When the convention to prepare the European Charter of Fundamental Rights was set up in 1999, there were a lot of sceptics. As I am sure you agree, rarely has a European committee worked as well as this convention in recent years.
I think it was exemplary. We should therefore discuss the future of Europe in a broadly composed committee in which government representatives, members of national parliaments and, of course, the European Parliament, all play an important role.
This is where the decisions needed should be prepared as comprehensively as possible.
It should govern action taken by the European institutions and be binding on the Member States as regards the implementation of European law. This will not affect the Member States’ catalogue of fundamental rights or the European Human Rights Convention. The second part of a European constitution must set a clear dividing line between the powers of the Member States and the powers of the European Union, thereby defining the fundamental relationship between the Member States and the federation. In so doing, an effort should be made to give the principle of subsidiarity a broader base. Only matters which are not better dealt with in the Member States should be decided at European level. That must be the guideline. In other words, everything not specifically allocated to Europe should remain the responsibility of the nation states. In order to counter the fear of creeping centralisation in Europe, I think we should also consider expressly stipulating the powers reserved for the Member States. I should just like to mention two examples here. The Member States must be able, even within the framework of a European social policy, to decide on their own old-age pension arrangements or to promote renewable sources of energy within the framework of an environmental policy.
We should be extremely careful and make every effort to ensure that the debate on the future of Europe is not just held in expert circles. We must involve all interested citizens. I agree with my Italian colleague, President Ciampi, and many other people that we must also involve the citizens of the candidate countries in this debate.
The future European constitution will also be their future order.
Ladies and gentlemen, exercise your rights as freely elected members of Parliament. Make use of the opportunity which you have to take Europe forward. You have more influence than many would have you believe. Help to make Europe real for the citizens of our countries. You have already done so much. Keep up the good work. I am with you all the way!
Of course, I know that even the most perfect definition of powers will not spare us conflict in the future. I agree with Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and numerous other Europeans that we should not stipulate what the EU will never be allowed to do. The constitution must allow for powers to be regulated differently by unanimous decision of the members of the federation. In addition to including the Charter of Fundamental Rights and regulating powers, the constitution should comprise a third section on the future institutional structure of Europe.
I spoke at the beginning of the uneasiness of many of our citizens, who experience or feel that they have too little influence on how quickly, in which direction and towards what destination the European unification train is travelling. They see their democratic rights violated, which is why the question of Europe’s democratic credentials must take centre stage in this debate.
Parliament and the Council of Ministers should – in my view – be developed into a proper two-chamber parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Long, loud standing ovation)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples