Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-28-Speech-3-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011128.4.3-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I think that the European Council that is about to take place, this time in Laeken, is of fundamental importance. We are at one of those pivotal moments, as Karl Jaspers would say. We will find that the introduction into circulation of euro notes and coins will increase the sense of belonging to Europe. Negotiations on enlargement will mean that a longstanding dream of many Europeans becomes reality. I think that the terrorist attacks against Washington and New York on 11 September have awoken the consciousness of European citizens, who are now asking for more Europe and better Europe.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, there is one issue that you, yourself, said is still not resolved, which is to the issue known as ‘cooling’. And as for myself, when I have to explain that after this work carried out by the one hundred and twelve people on reaching a final result, governments want to ‘cool down’, things become extremely complicated. What is this ‘cooling’ process? If the result is a good one, let us adopt it immediately, then we can move on to other things. We have enlargement to prepare for.
To conclude, Mr President, I think that we have to get rid of this fear of the Convention. We have to remember that Europe is asking us to give a positive indication. But what indication? This can only be the Intergovernmental Conference. I also hope that, at the end of this process, the indication will be a Constitution for the European Union.
Therefore, your responsibility, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, is great indeed. But let me tell you that I think you are doing a very good job, and I would like to say that this Belgian Presidency has maintained an excellent attitude towards the European Parliament, one that has been based upon collaboration, participation, listening and, in short, the desire to work together.
Support for the Convention is something that this Parliament chose to adopt a long time ago, even before Nice. In the Resolution of 17 November 1997, which I had the honour to present together with Dimitri Tsatsos, with regard to the Treaty of Amsterdam, we were already saying that the intergovernmental method for the revision of the Treaties had run its course and that we would have to look for another method. This method is the Convention.
Do not think that the European Parliament gave its support to the Convention because of some kind of obsession. This is not true. We did this because the Convention brings Europe closer to its citizens, because it is more open, more public, more transparent, more participatory; it allows, as the Convention that drafted the Charter proves, that our citizens want to be involved in the construction of Europe. For this reason we have put our faith in the Convention, and I am happy to say that the Convention will be brought to life in the Laeken declaration.
Make no mistake about the Convention, however. It is an instrument. With regard to another famous Convention in history, the Philadelphia Convention, George Washington said that you could talk about everything, propose everything yet decide upon nothing. This is also true. What we want is to help the decision making process, bringing Europe closer to its citizens, its people and bringing together the various legitimacies of the European Union.
Therefore, Members of the Council, there is no need to be afraid of the Convention. There is no need to take a successful instrument and empty it of content. There is no need to constrict the Convention. You must give the Convention all it needs to be a success.
The previous speakers – above all Mr Leinen, with whom I have had the great pleasure of collaborating in the drafting of this report – have spoken about many different subjects. Let me highlight some of these.
Firstly, the European Parliament is asking that, if we take our model to be the Convention that drafted the Charter on Fundamental Rights, the four parts of which it is comprised be balanced. In that particular Convention, there were 16 MEPs and 62 members of the Convention. In the proposal that you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, have sent to the capitals there are still 16 MEPs, but there are 120 members of the Convention. And I do not accept that some of these extra people are observers, because observers have exactly the same rights as everybody else, and so they should, except during participation in the final consensus.
I would also like to say, despite the words of a previous speaker, that the Commission has participated fully, and I would like to praise Commissioner Barnier’s observations, which have been very important. However, there is still an ambiguity with regard to the word ‘consensus’: consensus does not mean unanimity. This was not the case in the Convention that drafted the Charter. There were members of the Convention that voted against – and there is one very notable opponent amongst us today – but there was a sufficient majority, a sufficient consensus. Therefore, let it not be said, yet again, that consensus means unanimity. This is not true. It means final support for the resulting text."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples