Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-17-Speech-1-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011217.3.1-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In my opinion, nothing remains taboo in the Laeken Declaration. No issues were dodged. Just a few years ago, it would undoubtedly have been impossible to speak of directly electing the President of the European Commission or of a European constitution, for example. The extension of qualified majority voting and the co-decision powers of the European Parliament are still on the agenda. And perhaps most importantly of all, we will finally have redefined the division of powers between the Union and its Member States, which will open up new vistas for a more European asylum, immigration and defence policy. However, at the same time, it will pave the way for a Europe that is less obsessively detailed and less bureaucratic.
The instruments at the disposal of the Union also have to be changed: we need more framework laws that leave sufficient leeway for the Member States and the regions when it comes to fleshing out what the Union is bent on achieving.
In short, I think that the Laeken Declaration is intended to set the ball rolling for a process of constitutionalisation in the Union. In that context, I believe the form to be as important as the content. The Laeken Declaration has established a fresh method for amending treaties. In the past, a treaty would be amended behind closed doors, I would almost say in the trenches of the European Council – even though they are not always trenches, certainly not in Laeken – with diplomats and personal representatives of the Heads of State and Government, which meant that, in fact, only the leftovers from the previous conference would be discussed.
For the first time in the history of the European Union, a treaty amendment will be prepared by a Convention which also includes MEPs. I am naturally aware of the fact that there has been, still is and will no doubt continue to be a discussion about whether the Convention is or is not bound by this Laeken Declaration and whether the IGC will or will not be bound by the ultimate achievements of this Convention. In my opinion, the Laeken Declaration and the Convention above all represent an opportunity to take a different approach, and an opportunity for a new Europe. If the Convention produces a decent final report, then no one will ever be able to brush aside what it does and the IGC will have to take that into account.
That is the challenge facing us next year. And it is also the reason why I am so happy that Giuliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene will be joining Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in leading the Convention. In recent months, I have worked extremely well with them in the Laeken group, which assisted me in my preparations for the Laeken Declaration. I am sure that they will put all the energy of their European convictions into working on producing an ambitious final report that will be able to issue recommendations if there is a consensus. If no consensus is reached, then it will contain options instead, with an indication of the level of support the various choices can be expected to enjoy. It will certainly not be a non-committal exercise that will be undertaken by the Convention next year.
If the Convention works well, this new method for amending European treaties will moreover become a permanent fixture. So I would make the following appeal to the European Parliament: you will provide two members to the praesidium of the Convention, 16 members to the Convention and as many deputies. Your input will therefore be crucial to the outcome and the result of this Convention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples