Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.5.3-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, may I say a few words on behalf of the Commission at the close of this long debate, starting by reiterating how much I personally, who am in charge of the reform of the institutions for the Commission, have appreciated the quality and efficiency of the parliamentary debates held here or in your Committee on Constitutional Affairs under the chairmanship of Mr Napolitano over the ten months leading up to Nice. I should like, therefore, to thank you for that and to thank the pairs of MEPs who have addressed these questions in turn, be it Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen, Elmar Brok and Professor Tsatsos during the IGC or Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Seguro, whom I should like to thank today.
I should therefore like to say, on behalf of the Commission, that we are in favour of this convention in 2002 and 2003, because it is instrumental to the success of the exercise started in Nice and to real reform – this time in 2004. In all events, as far as the European Commission is concerned, it will participate fully, you may be sure, in preparing the various stages which will take us towards major reform between now and 2004.
We, the Commission and the European Parliament, have worked well together so it is hardly surprising that we have the same take on the contents of the Treaty of Nice. I have already had occasion to say, and I shall repeat today, that this treaty is, in my view, a useful, short-term treaty. It is useful because of the advances which it makes: Article 7, the reform of the jurisdictional system, which certainly needed reforming, more flexible reinforced cooperation, which we certainly need and the legal basis which you wanted for a clear and transparent statute for the political parties. It is useful, above all, as many of you have emphasised, because it changes the light from amber to green as far as enlargement is concerned. It is a useful treaty, but it is a short-term treaty.
What I mean by that, ladies and gentlemen, is that, in my view, the answers which it provides to the institutional challenge of creating a Union of thirty members which functions properly will not stand up in the long run to the problems which this Union of thirty members will encounter in the medium and long term. There are too many unanimous votes and too many rights of veto. We know full well that, with thirty members, this right of veto will be a source of impotence or collective weakness. Codecision does not apply generally to all Community legislation, as we wanted, and it is a pity that the European Parliament plays no part in commercial policy. Finally, to say that the voting system will remain or become more complex is an understatement.
At this stage, and before you return your verdict in all good conscience and responsibility, I should like to repeat that this treaty is useful, that it is a short-term treaty, that we need to take note of it, that we need to use it and that we then need to move on. Its main merit is that it paves the way for proceeding smoothly and quite quickly towards enlargement. Another of its merits is contained in the annex, as if the heads of state and government realised, at five o'clock in the morning once they had signed the text, that they could not leave it at that and they decided to start a new exercise there and then, as if they too had a bad conscience. Well, both the European Parliament and, more importantly, the Commission, will have to commit to this new exercise, which takes us up to 2004 and for which a new method has been authorised, proving that the intergovernmental method alone has had its day.
So now we have time to start a real public debate. As I said to the ministers of foreign affairs the other day we must find a way, in Gothenburg first of all, and perhaps in Laeken, but mainly in Gothenburg, of making an overall assessment of the national debates which are held, rather than holding a series of juxtaposed debates, a way of exchanging practices and information, of sort of cross-fertilising these national debates. The Commission, like the European Parliament, will be standing by at the Council's side, ready to turn these national debates into a European debate when the time is right. This public debate should enable us to make a sweeping examination of the weaknesses of the institutions and, over and above institutional questions, to start discussing the European project once again.
What is our common objective? Do we want to remain a large market which functions well with a single currency or do we want to go beyond that? How can we reinforce the community of values, the community of solidarity which has existed between us for the past fifty years? To prove that this European project obviously needs to evolve, but that it has borne fruit, especially with the Community model, which has functioned well, and with Community policies, which have been so useful. I should like in particular to remind you of the fruits of the policy for which I am responsible, the policy of cohesion.
This is what is so important about the major debate to which we are committed. Then, in 2002 and 2003, we will need to find a way of structuring this debate, of structuring our work so that we can prepare the final Intergovernmental Conference properly. That is why, in 2002 and 2003, as President Prodi said, we too are in favour of setting up a convention of all four institutional partners, along the lines of the model which worked so well for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, that is, national parliaments, the European Parliament, the national governments and the Commission.
Having said which, I have not replied to all the questions raised, especially concerning the association of the candidate countries because we hope, in 2004, to carry out a major reform which will affect them directly, just as if affects us, today, in the Union. I think they too should have a place at the convention table. We shall also have to decide how best to organise the work of this convention.
We know full well, ladies and gentlemen, that this convention – and I say this to reassure the Member States which have concerns on this count – will not take any decisions; it will make proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference, which will then have to take the final decisions quickly and at the highest level. This convention, however, from my point of view and in the light of the different experiences which we have had and which I personally had in Amsterdam, Nice and in the fundamental rights convention, this convention is, I think, the best way of ensuring that the next IGC is a success. It is the best way of achieving greater transparency, of having a real debate, because the four institutional partners involved in this preparatory work and in these proposals have the means, just as you have the means, of going beyond these doors and explaining what is happening to the elected representatives and citizens of our countries. This therefore is the
to transparency and it is the
to proper democratic explanation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples