Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-17-Speech-1-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011217.3.1-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I am particularly honoured to be taking part in this debate, just after the Laeken Summit. At Laeken, we took a great step forwards towards the kind of Europe we want: a more democratic, more open Europe with which our citizens are, at last, starting to identify fully.
The goal we set ourselves at Lisbon in March 2000 was to make the Union the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy within ten years. At the same time, we committed ourselves to making Europe a fairer society which is attentive to the needs of all. I am delighted that the Laeken Council agreed to give these objectives priority status. Barcelona will therefore have to represent a significant and irreversible step forwards in consolidating and developing the European social model, but we shall return to this subject during the run-up to the Summit.
The European Council has once again confirmed that the Galileo satellite navigation project is strategically important and a potential catalyst for innovation and competitiveness. It could hardly have done otherwise given that, just a month ago, the member States of the European Space Agency – 13 out of 15 of which are also Member States of the European Union – committed EUR 550 million to this project. Any other decision would have given a conflicting signal regarding the project, which is vital for our future and our independence. The European Council has set out clear dates and objectives for the first half of 2002: now it is time to move ahead without further delay. Our credibility and the credibility of the Council and Parliament depend on it. The Commission is therefore ready to help ensure that the commitments made are fulfilled and to move on to the practical implementation of the project, taking into account all its technical and financial aspects.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Convention must deliver what is expected of it and bring about a change that will enable us to face a difficult, complex future with confidence. Its task will not be to reinvent the Union or call into question the ‘acquis communautaire’, but rather to chart a course which will enable the Union, including its new Members after enlargement, to move ahead with political, social and economic integration.
The Convention approach is a deliberate break with the past. Our aim is to have it draw on the ideas and experience of the many, not the few. Our aim is for it to conduct its business in the clear light of day rather than behind closed doors. Within the Convention, the Commission will act as Guardian of the Treaties and promoter of the Community spirit. Equality between all the Member States and a balance between the Union’s institutions are the best guarantee of a fair, efficient Europe Moreover, the latest Eurobarometer indication is actually that the European citizens appear to be drawing closer to Europe and its institutions even more quickly than we might have imagined.
In 2004 at the latest, but probably before that date, the Convention’s contributions will be put to the test at an Intergovernmental Conference, after which the citizens of old and new Member States will elect representatives to this House. We must start to prepare now for these major, important events.
I would like to start by paying tribute to the Belgian Presidency of the Council for the way it has managed the work during this second half of the year, particularly the work which led to the Laeken Declaration. Laeken launched a new constitutional phase in European integration, one in which this House and the national parliaments will be able to play a key role. Indeed, the new process will be open and transparent and will help to give our fellow citizens a better grasp of the key issues being debated in Europe today. From the point of view of enlargement and globalisation, the stakes are very high.
I see the path mapped out at Laeken as the only way of ensuring democratic legitimacy, ensuring that the Union can pursue integration and enlargement without the danger of its citizens subsequently rejecting the solutions adopted by their governments.
The enlargement of the European Union is an irreversible process that is already well advanced. Indeed, we must not forget that this is one of the main reasons why we need the Convention. Without institutional change, the enlarged Union would simply be unable to function. Without open discussion, we would be in danger of losing the support of the citizens of the Union and the candidate countries. Furthermore, we must not underestimate the importance of the candidate countries being involved for the first time in an institutional process that has constitutional implications. It is their future, as well as the future of the existing fifteen Member States, that is being decided here.
The achievements of the Laeken European Council go beyond launching the Convention, however. The events of 11 September were a reminder of what those who want to abuse and destroy freedom can do, and the Council’s endorsement of our activities in the field of home affairs will help us to achieve our aim of building an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union.
Work on defining a common asylum and immigration policy has received fresh impetus. The European Council has called for the Commission’s communication on illegal immigration and the trafficking of human beings to serve as the basis for an action plan. In this context, as I proposed in my recent speech in Bruges, the European Council has asked the Council and the Commission to explore ways of enabling those that guard the Union’s external borders to cooperate effectively, and to look into the possibility of setting up a common mechanism or border-control service.
I regret that the Laeken Council was unable to go further in settling the issue of the future European agencies. This is not a disaster, let us be clear about that – I too agree with what Prime Minister Verhofstadt has said – but, as we have been on other occasions, we are forced to note that the unanimity rule really is an obstacle to decision-making.
One thing must be clear from now on. The ‘Community method’ has enabled the Union to become what it is: a union of peoples and a union of States, requiring an innovative decision-making structure with common institutions and a single voice representing all the countries, both large and small. The ‘Community method’ has served to promote efficiency and democratic legitimacy. Our task is merely to adapt and strengthen it. This is not just in order to avoid losing public support: it is also ensure that our actions are effective. Our fellow citizens have had enough of this sort of horse-trading. They are more interested in whether the much-heralded European Food Safety Authority is actually up and running than in where it is located. I can therefore confirm that, as of 1 January 2002, the Authority will start work at its temporary – and I stress ‘temporary’ – headquarters in Brussels. Europe’s citizens cannot wait any longer for us to set up a body dedicated to protecting their health.
In this connection, the Commission will continue to attach great importance to its relations with Parliament. We have improved our procedures and our working methods, but recent weeks have shown that this process of building relationships and establishing procedures has not yet allowed us to achieve the aims we all set ourselves. We must work together to achieve them speedily and make total synergy between Commission and Parliament the basis of the second half of our term of office."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples