Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.5.3-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the field of foreign and security policy shows in exemplary manner the shortcomings of the results of Nice and of the Treaty as a whole. The European Union is strong wherever the Monnet method is used. The European Union is weak wherever the intergovernmental method is used. We see it in the area of foreign and security policy with the twin structures that hamper our freedom of action. We also see it, for example, in the fact that closer cooperation is used everywhere where it is not necessarily needed; but where it is needed most urgently – in defence – it is not used.
We need to remind ourselves why the Nice Conference took place. It was meant to strengthen the European Union’s ability to act for enlargement and at the same time to reduce the democratic deficit. In neither area were the desired results achieved, and as far as the decision-making structures are concerned, they were actually made worse. We therefore have to recognise that the present method is no longer working. I have twice had the honour of representing Parliament – in Amsterdam and in Nice – and I know that this method of preparing for the Intergovernmental Conference does not bring us the necessary progress. Only the convention can do that, with the national parliaments and the European Parliament, too, suitably involved alongside the Commission and the governments.
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, the open forum is no alternative to the convention. It may be helpful in making preparations, but the convention – consisting of parliamentarians – can channel that open forum, the public debate, so as to present to you as heads of state and government an outcome that will form the basis for your negotiations. It therefore builds on the public process, but it is not an alternative to the public process.
We have to see to it that the citizens of this Europe enjoy their rights. That is why the Charter must be made binding. We must therefore ensure that where this European Union has powers it is able to take decisions, so that its decision-making ability gains it acceptance. We must make this European Union democratic. There must therefore be codecision in all matters of legislation, including agricultural policy. We must make it transparent so that citizens know who is responsible for a bad decision. That is why the Council as legislator must meet openly. These are the decisive measures that we must get accepted at this Intergovernmental Conference!
At the same time, it is also necessary to strengthen the national parliaments. It is not enough, as Mr Jospin has suggested, to bring a Chinese People’s Congress to Europe for major debates once a year. No, we must strengthen the national parliaments at home so that they can control their national governments as members of the Council! That must be the starting point!
We are now in a situation where the next two and a half years will shape the face and the size of Europe. We shall shape its face by conducting this constitutional debate in a reasonable manner and bringing it to a conclusion and by bringing about enlargement – both things together.
I hope we shall have the strength and not the vanity of many governments who think their job is to sit around where they are and stand in the way of progress! That is why we should give the convention a chance, so that Europe’s elected representatives, the European Parliament and the national parliaments can play a part in shaping that face!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples