Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.1.3-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to say, on behalf of my group, how extraordinarily grateful we are to the rapporteurs Mr Gil-Robles and Mr Tsatsos, not only because – as was only to be expected – they have done an outstanding job, but also because their work makes political sense, stating as it does that there are things with which we are not satisfied, areas where one could have gone a good deal further, but that considerations of compromise and balance led us to find a way that we should take.
I believe that this is an important message, identical to that expressed by the Italian Presidency of the Council, and that it is for this reason that Parliament and the Italian Presidency of the Council will be able to cooperate constructively at the Intergovernmental Conference. It must be clear to us that this draft constitution represents a considerable advance in almost every area. Whereas Nice created only the formal conditions for enlargement, this constitution creates the conditions under which the enlarged community will be viable, with its viability made manifest by its greater capacity for action, improved decision-making mechanisms and the extension of the principle of majority decision-making. We could certainly have done more but, I believe, the progress is plain to see.
It must be clear to us that the removal of the pillar principle and the possibility of development inherent in the actual constitution change the fundamental structure. I believe that the democratic principle has also been decisively strengthened. The Treaty of Amsterdam represented a breakthrough for the right of codecision, which we are now on the way to completing in the course of making the European Parliament an institution with real capacity to act and real powers of codecision in almost all areas of Community law. It must also, moreover, be apparent to us that opening up the Council’s legislative process to the public can make a dramatic leap forward in terms of transparency. I believe it to be crucial that we have a transparent EU, one in which the citizen can establish who is responsible for what, and can upbraid and punish the guilty parties. I believe that, if citizens do not understand how decisions are taken and who is responsible for them, they cannot be expected to accept them. I hope that the influence of national ministries will not be so great in this area as to make transparency in it impossible.
I believe that it amounts to a decisive step forward that we should have a division of competences that will make it much easier for us to say, in future, where Europe has authority and where it does not. This too is important in order that the nation states do not feel that they are losing their identity and that Europe is drawing everything to itself. If competences are clearly delineated, then they are an area in respect of which one can demand improved decision-making processes and greater capacity to act, and there will be fewer grey areas. This ties in with the principle of subsidiarity. I see this as really substantial progress, as this gives the national parliaments the opportunity and hence the awareness of exerting influence when they believe that the subsidiarity principle has been violated. I believe that it is also extraordinarily important in terms of the Community’s internal health that the national parliaments have gained for themselves this role, without the levels being confused or decision-making processes made complicated.
It is also important that Europe should be brought closer to its citizens, for it will be, in future, by way of the European parliamentary elections that the president of the Commission will be chosen. It is on the citizen that the EU is founded, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights makes him also its subject, protected by it and with the capacity to act. I believe that this, in future, will be of great significance. Within the European Union, we must also ensure that the balance between large and small, rich and poor, new and old members is guaranteed, so that the small countries feel that the balance in the EU’s institutions enables them to put across their point of view and defend their identity. The strength of the larger countries consists in their consideration for the smaller ones. I believe that we have to introduce this into the equation, just as we also have to make it clear that, in structural cooperation in defence and in other areas, when some go on ahead, the door must always be open for others who want to join in at a later date, and that we must put no new obstacles in their way. It must be perfectly clear that this constitution may well be the last chance we have to realise a Europe of equal rights, rather than a two-tier-Europe. In view of Europe’s enlargement, it is important that we try to achieve this.
Let me make one final observation. The European Union is also a union of values, as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the preamble make clear. If we were to be strong enough to associate the religious element – in a spirit of tolerance – with the word ‘Christian’, that would surely be the sort of progress that would be in the public interest."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples