Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.5.3-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I find it pleasing that is that there are so many participants in this debate that it is going on longer than planned. However, I regret that since it has gone on longer I must leave the debate in order not to miss the last flight to Sweden.
To return to the beginning of the debate and the contributions that were made then, I do not know whether I can promise Mr Cox an Irish pub with beer, or whether I can promise Mr Voggenhuber a European bazaar, but as I said in my introductory statement, as Swedish Foreign Minister I believe in a genuinely open forum – a convention. I can agree with what Mr Poettering, Mr Barón Crespo, Mrs Kaufmann and others have said, that a convention is an important part of the preparations. However, at the same time we must remain open to other preparations as regards national committees and debates, as regards technical preparatory groups and the like.
I would like to come back to Mr Cox’s comparison with the Irish pub, where no doubt the beer represented the convention. I have also been to Irish pubs and I agree that the beer plays the most important role, but there has
been the possibility of having a mineral water, a fruit juice or a glass of wine, so we can no doubt show the same generosity when it comes to preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference.
The decision on whether or not to have a convention will be taken in Laeken, but it is my hope that we will move in the right direction in Gothenburg.
I would also like briefly to touch on the criticism of Nice. I believe that it is over-hasty to say that the decision-making process is worse following the Treaty of Nice, as some speakers have done. After all, we know the problems that we see arising when decisions have to be taken unanimously. Now we are making decisions by qualified majority in many more areas. At the same time, in practice it is often the case that where we have the right to take decisions by qualified majority compromises and decisions are forced through, and it is
unusual for there to be a formal vote. When we evaluate the Treaty of Nice I believe that we will see that in practice the decision-making process has actually been improved.
Moreover, I would like to agree with the speakers who said that Nice was decisive for being able to continue with the enlargement and that Nice has therefore played an important part in ensuring that what is the most important matter for the Union today, namely enlargement, will continue to be important. As far as that is concerned, as President-in-Office of the Council I also think that it is pleasing to be able to state that we now have an agreement between the Member States concerning free movement of labour, which also allows us to move on in the enlargement negotiations.
Finally I would like to thank you for today’s debate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples