Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-17-Speech-1-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011217.3.1-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at this point I would like to respond to certain comments you have made. I must also, unfortunately, have to ask you to excuse me, but I did not imagine that we were going to overrun to this extent, and I have another commitment, also relating to this debate on the future of Europe.
Unfortunately I cannot stay here much longer. I still want to say a word about governance and the reform of the Council. I agree with Mr Martin on the need to take measures without delay in order to bring the Union closer to its citizens and improve the functioning of the European institutions. The Convention will discuss measures which will lead to a modification of the Treaties in 2004. However, the Laeken European Council has highlighted measures which may be taken straight away. In this context, we have welcomed the White Paper on European Governance, as well as the Secretary-General of the Council’s intention to present proposals to the European Council in Barcelona aimed at improving the functioning of the Council. The European Council in Seville will draw operational conclusions from it.
I think I have responded as fully as possible to the list of interventions which the Prime Minister has not yet been able to reply to. I hope that you will forgive me for not being able to stay. I am really sorry, especially since I enjoy being amongst you, because I have come to know this Parliament. I have heard many pertinent interventions here, which show a certain tendency towards freedom of expression and autonomy, and I have also noted an element which is rarely seen in national parliaments and that is that different kinds of interventions may be heard coming from a single group. There is a freedom and a freshness in this which I like very much. I hope that one day – as I have already said, but I will repeat it – I will be able to return to this House to refresh my spirit.
I clearly do not agree with all the views expressed by Mr Krarup on the pompous rhetoric of Laeken. On the contrary, I believe that the Convention method completely opens up the game. I believe that one of the elements, one of our possible fears in relation to this Laeken declaration, is that it does not commit the members of the Convention to certain closed questions, or in any event does not allow all the issues which are vital to the future of Europe to be dealt with. The same speaker spoke of a lack of democracy. I would therefore like to reply to him, as well as to Mr Swoboda, who contrasts the representative or democratic characteristics of the Council with those of the European Parliament. The European Parliament, Mr Swoboda, is a representative democratic institution, of course, and I respect it fully. But to therefore reduce the representative nature of the Council is going too far.
That is what I understood you to say, and, though I have misunderstood, all the same I am going to say that I think the Ministers or Prime Ministers who attend Councils can be questioned in each Member State. There are national parliaments for that. I can tell you that I am ill-treated in my country, because almost every week, at least when I am there, I am asked what I do in the European institutions. I believe that this is not the right debate in which to establish a hierarchy in terms of the representativeness of the institutions. Each institution has its place. I willingly concede that the important thing is that we establish a balance between the institutions, that one institution does not completely dominate another. I am very happy to say, for example, that my current experience of the European Parliament has convinced me that it must undoubtedly have more powers and play a more important specific role in the future than it does at the moment. And in particular – and I am straying from the current debate for a second – in terms of what we can expect if the international coalition continues as it is, if it continues to play a role, if we continue to believe that it is necessary, and I believe that it is necessary in order to combat terrorism, the European Parliament must closely monitor the decisions made by European Councils and also by the Member States of the Union, because as I have said previously, and I will continue to repeat, there are several dangers in this respect. Firstly there is the danger of corrupting the quality of democracy and of life in our countries. The second danger, which I am very sensitive to, is that, for a certain number of political regimes, the fight, and I am not talking about European States here, but it does concern us in terms of our relations with these countries, for a certain number of countries with tough regimes, there is a temptation to confuse the fight against terrorism with a fight against the country’s democratic opponents, against the country’s opposition. We must clearly take this into account. Thirdly, Mr Lannoye has just mentioned the relationship between the European Union and the United States. We must also be careful in this respect. I believe that we should not be automatically led along, without debate, without discussion, without even, at times, consultation, in blind solidarity with the United States. I believe that the European Union has the right and the duty to express its differences with the United States. I have total respect for the United States, I believe that we undoubtedly have a special partnership with the United States, but I believe that in the coalition put together after 11 September, it was good that the European Union was there to express a slightly different approach, to express certain guarantees and assurances, and also to play the role that the European Union has played within the Arab countries, within the Islamic world. I do not therefore think that the European Union will ever become a kind of copy of the United States of America. I must tell you that I do not want that at all. Of course, I respect the American model. In many respects, it is extremely positive, but it is not transposable. It is not desirable to transpose it. And I believe that the European Union must retain its own character.
Many questions have concerned the Convention. I must talk about the regrets concerning the composition of the trio heading the Convention. I believe that all three of the personalities involved are very committed to the European project and also have an extremely modern, forward-looking and committed view of the European Union and, something which is perhaps important, enjoy great reputations and a network of relations, academic, political and others, which may ensure that if they defend a point of view, they have a good chance of being heard, even by the European Council. This is of no small importance.
I would like to say that the Convention, which is perhaps the greatest virtue of the Laeken declaration – and I have already had the opportunity to say this in the European Parliament –, will in reality become what the members of the Convention want to make of it. You have a praesidium which is not there
because it is a praesidium which counts. The number of people in this praesidium will ensure that it is heard. It is very representative of the different components of the Convention and of the European decision-making world. I therefore believe that with the trio in question, with this praesidium, the meetings will be well-organised, the meetings and the issues will be well-developed, and above all – and this morning I heard Mr Dehaene voice his opinion on this issue on the radio – I think that what will be important is that the options presented by the Convention to the IGC be clear, that they do not leave room for too many interpretations at the IGC. Of course, the IGC can accept them or refuse them. But what is certain is that, if these options are well-balanced, if they are specific, if they are well-targeted and if they are strongly supported, there will be little room for the Council to ignore them, otherwise the Council will not be fulfilling its political duty, or in any event it will be taking a risk. It will be at that point that the political responsibility of the Council will clearly be called into question. I therefore have great confidence in the way the Convention is going to develop. I will add another factor, which is that the Laeken declaration offers all of us who believe in a more integrated Europe a fantastic opportunity to engage in a little European pedagogy, in this respect at least. I am thinking in particular of young people. We must not only talk of perspectives, which is clearly very important, but at the same time we must try to educate young people in relation to Europe, to explain to them how we work, to explain to them that Europe deals much more directly with their concerns than people believe or than the press indicates. This is another way to use this Convention. I think that I have been clear about the Convention.
The idea of a more integrated European diplomatic service has been mentioned. I believe that the conclusions of the summit contain a passage on consular cooperation. This is a start. The opening of common consulates will be a first step and I hope that we will go further.
I share Mrs Lalumière’s view that the Convention should not only examine institutional issues but also the content of policies. Opinion polls indicate that our citizens are in favour of more resolute European actions in various fields, such as social policy, foreign and defence policy and environmental protection. I believe that the Convention should examine how we should respond to these expectations, by adjusting the competences and tasks of the Union if necessary.
There has been mention of a social deficit. I think I can say – Mr Dehousse quite rightly pointed this out previously – that one of the aspects which has clearly been most successful during this Presidency is precisely the firm innovative progress made, because this is important, on a social level. Think for example of the social indicators, of the quality of employment. I believe that this is of importance. Think also of the European social conciliator. There are a whole series of completely new elements here which are genuine tools for supporting a real social policy which is more than just packaging or a facelift. The work carried out by Mrs Onckelinks from this point of view, with Mr van den Broek, is absolutely remarkable and they have played a crucial role, in our view at least, in the success of the Belgian Presidency. This is a fundamentally important element. To a certain extent this relates to what Mrs Lalumière has requested, which is that we clearly concern ourselves with more than the merely institutional issues. I said just a moment ago that I fully share that point of view."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Protests from Mr Swoboda)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples