Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-174"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.8.2-174"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, eighteen months ago, standing before this House, I announced that one of the new Commission's strategic priorities would be to reflect on the state of the Union's institutions and to promote new forms of European governance.
The European citizens are concerned because they can see the scale of the radical changes which are transforming our democracies. The effects of globalisation and social change, both of which have been progressing rapidly and uncompromisingly, are profoundly affecting the daily lives of everyone.
For many years, the European Union project was seen as a beacon of hope and today it is the only concrete, practical, democratic response to the challenges of globalisation. Our European model of democracy, competitiveness and social solidarity, is the only one that can offer our citizens the stable future they are looking for. They can see that no individual Member State can, on its own, withstand the powerful external forces that threaten to break up our societies.
Many events have cast doubt on our ability to deliver in this great undertaking. The situation has not been improved by some of the opportunities we missed at Nice. It is therefore our prime duty, and a matter of urgency, to publicly rethink and rewrite our rules of governance.
When we speak of "governance" we are, in fact, discussing democracy: European democracy, how it works, where the problems lie and also what its prospects are.
The Commission has therefore chosen to proceed in three stages. In this first stage, the White Paper discusses how we can improve European governance without changing the founding treaties. We are convinced that a great deal can be done simply by changing the way the institutions and the Member States work – applying the existing rules better and more consistently.
During the second stage, the Commission will state its position on the Laeken process.
In the third and final stage, the Commission will say what substantive amendments it believes should be made to the founding Treaties as priorities. In preparing its proposals, the Commission will take the fullest possible account of the opinions expressed in the debate triggered by this White Paper and, first and foremost, the criticisms and suggestions made by Parliament, by this House.
In drawing up its White Paper, the Commission maintained a realistic, practical approach. We therefore concentrated on two aspects of European governance: firstly, the relationships between the citizens, organised civil society, central and local governments and the European institutions; and secondly, how the European institutions operate and interinstitutional relationships.
Nor could we tell our fellow citizens, yet again, that the only way to solve the outstanding problems of European governance is to amend the founding Treaties. I, for one, do not believe this. It is an over-simplistic solution. We therefore decided that we have to put our own house in order before discussing how to rebuild the city.
That is why the Commission chose to focus its White Paper on ways of improving the present system, making better use of the options already open to us under the present Treaties.
I promised, on that occasion, that the Commission would publish a White Paper in 2001, before the summer break. We have kept our promise, and I am particularly happy to be making the first official presentation of the White Paper before the European Parliament. This is not just for reasons of protocol but because the central theme of the White Paper – bringing Europe closer to its citizens – is, in fact, one of the primary concerns of both Parliament and the Commission.
Many issues can be resolved by courageously applying the prevailing rules already agreed upon and abandoning practices that have caused the European project to deviate from its original objectives.
What exactly have we done, then, during this first stage?
The White Paper's analysis and proposals are based on five essential principles: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. These principles complement and reinforce the two fundamental principles already enshrined in our Treaties – subsidiarity and proportionality.
The proposals contained in the White Paper aim to improve the way the Community method works in three ways: by getting the citizens more closely involved in defining the Union's policies, by implementing those policies effectively and by clearly distinguishing between the roles and responsibilities of the European institutions, recognising that each needs to concentrate on doing its own core job.
Let me explain all this in greater detail.
First and foremost, we need to get the citizens more closely involved in defining EU policies. This does not mean changing the institutional balance or asking bodies who have not been democratically elected to represent the citizens. That would not be appropriate. You know my views on this: Parliament, this House, is the place where the peoples of the Union are democratically represented.
However, it does mean taking on a new challenge: the citizens' growing call to be able to make their voices heard not just indirectly through the constitutional organs but more directly via their local governments and citizens' associations as well.
Our task must not be to oppose this expression of the people's voice and of the complex nature of our societies but rather to channel it, finding new, appropriate ways of entering into dialogue with local authorities and civil society.
The underlying problem is a lack of communication. If we want to bring the European Union closer to its citizens and make Brussels less remote, we must explain the Union's policies in clear and simple language and open them up to public discussion. We must encourage the emergence of a European network, where all levels of government are involved in shaping, implementing and monitoring EU policies.
The White Paper proposes a systematic approach to creating this network. It will require better contacts with national, regional and local organisations and bodies in order to shape and implement EU decisions while fully respecting the constitutional organisation of each Member State.
As the representatives of Europe's citizens, you are, by definition, the legitimate link between the Union and its peoples. Your specific proposals in response to and in addition to the White Paper will therefore be of enormous help to us in drawing up a "road map" for the years ahead.
We must also ensure that civil society is fully consulted. I do not, of course, believe that bodies such as NGOs can represent public opinion in the same way as the European Parliament, or in the way that employers' associations and trade unions represent the views of their members.
Moreover, we have to ensure that the internal organisation of NGOs is based on democratic principles. However, the European Commission does want to draw on their energy and commitment, and the White Paper explores ways of doing so.
Therefore, the White Paper proposes minimum consultation standards with a two-fold aim: to make it quite clear whom we have consulted, who has given us what advice and whether and how we intend to act on it. Parliament will thus be able to monitor both the quality and the impartiality of the consultation process when taking its decisions in the course of the legislative process.
Moving on to the second question of how we can make European Union action more effective:
Community legislation is often criticised as being too heavy-handed. It is also sometimes perceived as failing to keep pace with rapid technological progress and social change.
There is some truth in both these criticisms, and we must take it into consideration. Moreover, we can do so, for the existing Treaties provide us with a wide range of instruments enabling us to take action at the appropriate levels.
Furthermore, now that the internal market is largely complete, there is much less need for new legislation in this area. The Union should therefore concentrate first and foremost on ensuring that its existing laws are properly and effectively implemented so that the internal market functions as smoothly as possible and that as little distortion of competition occurs as possible.
What can the Commission do to ensure that European law is of the highest quality? Let me briefly mention five courses of action outlined in our White Paper. Firstly, we intend to take action to restore public confidence in our scientific advice and, more generally, in the way we consult experts. Secondly, in law making, we need a better way of assessing what type of legislation is needed. Thirdly, we need a clearer definition of the circumstances under which Community legislation should be supplemented by other forms of action such as self-regulation or the open method of co-ordination. Fourthly, the Commission intends to concentrate its efforts on those areas that really do require it to assume political responsibility. Other work should be entrusted to EU agencies, whose tasks and responsibilities we must discuss later in detail. Fifthly, we propose that the Commission should consolidate its task of ensuring that Community law is properly applied in the Member States. This is a matter of grave concern, for the present standard of implementation of Community law is disappointing.
The direct responsibility for the ineffectiveness and unpopularity of European legislation lies primarily with the Member States. To remedy this, the White Paper recommends using regulations in many cases where they would be more appropriate than directives.
Certainly, however, the clarity of our primary legislation depends largely on the quality of the work done by the Council and, in the case of co-decision, by this House.
I shall be delighted to begin discussing your proposals in detail at Parliament’s next part-session, two weeks from now in Brussels.
On the eve of enlargement, we must therefore ensure that European law is of the highest quality and that it is properly and effectively applied.
The Commission has clearly set out in its White Paper the action we are going to take to set our own house in order. We hope this will prompt the other institutions and the Member States to do likewise without delay.
The third and final type of change is aimed at clarifying the different roles and responsibilities of the European institutions so that they can refocus on their core political tasks.
Within the institutions, practices not intended by the Treaty have developed that have distorted the original Community idea conceived by Europe's founding fathers. If correctly applied, the existing Treaty would separate clearly the roles of Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice and the other institutions.
In practice, however, Europe's citizens find themselves confused by types of action that blur this clear distinction of roles. People no longer understand who proposes, who decides and who monitors. Still less do they understand which institution is responsible for which action, whether responsibility lies with the European institutions or with the Member States.
We need to rectify this situation swiftly and resolutely and, to achieve this, we do not, in the short term, need to amend the Treaty.
Refocusing on our core political tasks, as recommended in the White Paper, means reformulating our European Union policies and therefore reorganising the way our three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – operate and cooperate.
The most glaring example of how the system has been distorted is our comitology. The Council, which is supposed to be a legislative body, is taking on an executive role, while Parliament, also a legislative institution, is excluded from this part of the procedure. The Commission, which is supposed to be the executive, has to negotiate details with the legislator, but the Council assumes none of the consequent political responsibility because, in reality, it is officials from the national authorities – that is the Member States directly – that take part in the meetings of experts.
We need simple mechanisms allowing the Council and the European Parliament to work on an equal footing, monitoring the Commission’s work and thereby ensuring that it adheres to the principles and political guidelines adopted by the legislator.
The Union's overall political priorities must be expressed and discussed in formal, regular policy debates such as the European Council meetings, the Commission President's annual State of the Union address to Parliament and other formal, political debates.
From the very start of my Presidency, I have stated my firm conviction that we need to rethink the way we are integrating Europe, to establish an exemplary new relationship between Europe's citizens and its political institutions in a historic period in which transparency and accountability are becoming the new rules of governance. However, the Nice summit altered the political landscape in which we have to develop this project. Following the adoption of the Nice Declaration on the Future of Europe by the Intergovernmental Conference, a lively debate on the European Union's future and its ultimate goals has already taken off.
This brings me to the question of how we can improve the way the Commission, the Council and Parliament work together. The greatest obstacle to clear policymaking is the opaque way in which the Council of Ministers operates and its increasing inability, especially at meetings of the General Affairs Council, to reconcile sectoral conflicts of interest before the European Council.
There is much that can, and should, be done to improve European governance in this respect, without it being necessary to amend the Treaties. The purpose of our White Paper proposals is this, just this, but the change will be far-reaching.
Ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this House too needs to refocus on its core tasks, concentrating on Parliament's decision-making role, on monitoring the implementation of policy and on its great budgetary responsibilities.
Respectfully but firmly, the White Paper suggests that the European Parliament should "depart from the present emphasis on detailed accounting" and move towards "more policy-oriented control based on political objectives". As guardian of the Treaty, it is my duty to point in this direction, but it is not for me to say how the change should be brought about. That is for you to decide.
Finally, changes must be made to the way in which the three institutions work together. The refocusing must be an inter-institutional process. We need to make it clearer who is responsible for what legislative and executive tasks.
Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has long since ceased to be a mere common market: it has become a political entity and the citizens of Europe know this. We shall all have very tangible proof of this when euro coins and notes are in our pockets in few weeks’ time.
The people of Europe want this Union to be theirs. That means building a climate of trust between the citizens and the institutions and a climate of trust between the Member States themselves and between the institutions and the Member States too. Rebuilding trust between Europe and its citizens also means giving them a clear understanding of its objectives and of the powers of the different institutions.
The time has come to make these ambitious goals a reality. Our White Paper is the initial contribution which will allow us to launch a complex process forthwith. Together, we have the chance to revitalise the European project, the chance to secure it on the firm foundations of mature, transparent, genuine democracy.
I appeal to you not to let this opportunity pass us by.
(
)
Both political leaders and European citizens have voiced their opinions. The Europeans expect much of Europe. They want their citizenship of the Union to be meaningful in both symbolic and practical terms, as we saw clearly from the debate about the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Therefore, let me say once again that I hope the Charter will be fully integrated into the Treaties.
Europe has at last begun the great debate on how to achieve a more complete democracy. Our fellow citizens are disenchanted with the present system, they are staying away from elections and their faith in the ability of the political parties to convey the will of the people is fading.
These are worrying signs and they can be seen everywhere. They concern not just the European institutions but all relations between the people and their representatives, whatever the level."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples