Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.2.3-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, when I last spoke to you, I pointed out that, although the underlying fundamentals are in place, quick, decisive action is needed to pull the Union’s economy out of the current period of stagnation. That is why the Commission presented the European Initiative for Growth I outlined to you at the beginning of the month. Today, I am pleased to say that the European Council has endorsed our ideas for reviving the economy and stimulating growth and jobs.
Of course, the Intergovernmental Conference has to go into the points that were not addressed by the Convention or not dealt with in sufficient depth. However, there are only a very few points where the draft Constitution needs changing and the ministers' meetings of 4 and 13 October showed that many of these points concern issues that the Constitution need not settle. It is more appropriate for them to be dealt with in secondary legislation or in the internal rules of the various institutions. This would appear to be very important if we are to achieve effective conclusions quickly. Today, I just want to focus on one point that, without a doubt, does need addressing at the Conference because it is likely to become a sticking point. As you know, throughout the last Intergovernmental Conference, I fought for double simple majority voting in Council decision-making. Indeed, our fellow citizens would intuitively understand such a system because it would be simple and transparent. It would also make for more effective, streamlined decision-making. I have never concealed the fact that, on this point, I was disappointed with the outcome at Nice and I have done my best to promote a simple system: a simple majority of at least 50% of the Member States and of 50% plus one of the population. The draft Constitution put forward by the Convention provided for a slightly more complicated system: 50% of the Member States and 60% of the population. That is not quite what we had hoped for but, overall, I feel it is still a satisfactory solution, for it is simple and transparent and means decisions can be taken.
In practical terms, under this system, decisions have practically the same chances of being adopted successfully as under the extremely complex weighting system concocted at Nice. There are some, however, who would now like to raise the figure for a qualified majority to 66% of the population. We must strongly oppose this idea, which seeks to overturn the balance crafted by the Convention.
Looking at the possible consequences, it would make it so much easier for a small minority to block an initiative and hamstring the Union.
In the way it is made up, as we have already said, the Commission must reflect all national perspectives. Moreover, even the Convention came out in favour of a Commission comprising one Commissioner from each Member State. Little consideration has been given to this, but the Convention’s proposal is
one Commissioner per Member State. However, the structure proposed was complicated and, in my opinion, unworkable. Our proposal must not, therefore, be seen as reopening the constitutional package – there is already one Commissioner per Member State – but, in actual fact, as a contribution to a final compromise. The proof is that a majority of countries are clearly in favour of a Commission with Commissioners coming from each Member State of the Union and all enjoying the same voting rights. That is the difference.
This could bring us closer to a balanced, politically acceptable solution. The Commission has already put forward suggestions for organising an enlarged Commission that would ensure it is effective in decision-making terms as well as having full legitimacy. Anyone who imagines the Commission is seeking to introduce a
here or that we could stray so far from the vision of the founding fathers is, therefore, way off track. The Commission can play its political role only if it can assert a legitimacy and credibility of its own, and these derive from its close link with national cultures and perspectives across the whole Union.
Lastly, there is a third point which it is absolutely vital to address: ensuring that the Constitution can be amended in the future. We are aware that, if changes have to be agreed and ratified unanimously by 25 or more different parties, this will mean, in practice, that the Constitution cannot be amended.
The Growth Initiative is simple and practical. It does not seek to alter the priorities of the Lisbon strategy, but to bolster and speed up its implementation. Its main aims will be, firstly, to overcome the barriers to coordination, especially those deriving from red tape, and, secondly, to mobilise the public and private-sector funds needed to finance certain infrastructure projects already on the drawing board and get them started. That is why we are preparing a quick-start list of infrastructure and research projects that are on a genuinely European scale. The projects selected for the quick-start list will be taken from the longer list of 29 projects put forward earlier this year. They will include major trans-European transport links and other projects with a high-technology content. The list is based on two main ideas: a desire to produce practical results quickly and the great need to ensure compatibility with the sustainable-development goals we have set ourselves.
Any reform will be completely impossible. Remember – and, here, since everyone else is doing so, I really do want to recall the great battle that took place over the wording of the US Constitution – that, if it cannot be amended, our Constitution will not be workable and will fall apart at the very first hitch. An inflexible Constitution is worse than nothing.
Ladies and gentlemen, as we have seen from these brief words, the European Union needs a dynamic economy and a sound Constitution. We must muster the strength of the large Member States and rally the support of the smaller for the good of all. We must release all our existing energies and harness our resources to the full. When we speak of harnessing our resources to the full, I am also thinking of the resources we draw from legal immigration – which the President-in-Office of the Council rightly mentioned – the immigrants that form the bulk of the workforce for those jobs that our young people no longer want to do – there is no point in pretending this is not the case – and the highly qualified technicians we vitally need for our industry and our economy.
The whole phenomenon of migration is very difficult to manage, both in terms of the need to integrate legal immigrants, who must share in the rights that our society guarantees to all its citizens, and in terms of combating illegal immigration and the latter-day trade in human beings that violates all our values so intolerably. This is not a burden that we can leave the individual Member States to bear, not least because it would be heavier for some Member States than others. Today, no one can cope with it satisfactorily, given the lack of a single EU policy approach to the phenomenon. The Commission has done its part and perhaps even more than its duty, for many of our proposals have not been accepted. There was the Tampere programme and the Thessaloniki programme too. Now we have undertaken to adopt a proposal very quickly on an agency for the common management of borders. That is a lot, and I am happy to acknowledge it, but it is not enough. It is clear from what Mr Berlusconi said that the problem continues to have very tragic consequences and that it may even be growing. A single policy approach is needed and funding will have to be found to implement it. Common channels must be defined for legal immigration and a global negotiation organised on that basis with the countries of emigration, the countries of provenance of immigrants.
Moreover – to show you the full extent of the problems – these countries need to have such legal lists so they can step up measures to discourage these desperate attempts by illegal immigrants. We must guarantee to these countries that at least a minimal amount of their emigration can be regularised; in other words, there must be cooperation between us. It was not possible to achieve this at the last Council, but the Commission will strike out once again along this road because we see it as the only way of actively managing immigration, both legal and illegal. I cannot close my eyes to these recurring tragedies that have been mentioned. We cannot close our eyes to them, and the Commission certainly will not.
This desire to produce tangible results takes three main forms. Firstly, it takes advantage of the potential offered by a higher rate of Union cofinancing. Indeed, the Commission has proposed raising the Community’s contribution to 30% of the cost of the cross-border component of each project. This brings greater leverage in mobilising private-sector and other public-sector funding. Secondly, it concentrates resources on a small number of mature projects. The impact of investments will be all the greater if financial efforts are focused on those projects that are ready for take-off instead of being dispersed. Thirdly, it selects projects with the highest potential to
produce results quickly. This means practically resolving the most complex difficulties, particularly with a view to enlargement, creating jobs, stimulating growth and harnessing research and technological innovation potential, laying the foundations for improvements to competitiveness.
Lastly, the quick-start list gives great consideration to compatibility, and the projects selected are sustainable in environmental as well as in economic and financial terms. In particular, however, the funding must comply with the Stability and Growth Pact and it must be in line with the commitment to improve the quality of expenditure, as set out in the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. May I express my appreciation, at this point, for the great spirit of cooperation displayed by the European Investment Bank, which has drawn up a meticulous plan for financing this Initiative and with which we are working in complete harmony. Of course, these are not the only projects that can be implemented under the Growth Initiative. Personally, I hope others will be added to the list.
There are several other important aspects to this Initiative. Firstly, it defines the priorities better and more clearly and concentrates resources on the best projects; it coordinates management of operative phases of major projects better, where appropriate appointing a coordinator to help resolve difficulties holding up the completion of work; it takes the regulatory environment into account and it tackles other bureaucratic and administrative factors that have slowed up completion thus far.
Where do we go from here? The European Council has endorsed the ideas in the Initiative. Indeed, it has given the Commission the green light to prepare a detailed proposal, in conjunction with the European Investment Bank, to put to the Heads of State or Government for approval in December. The European Council's endorsement is very good news: programmes, action plans and consensus are all very well but they will not just produce investment at the drop of a hat. To change things on the ground, we will need political will and a major undertaking. The next few months will therefore be an important test for the European Union in this area. In other words, if we are serious about meeting the Lisbon targets, we must hope that, in December, the European Council turns words into action and implements our proposals.
Ladies and gentlemen, the second topic I wish to report on is the Intergovernmental Conference. As you know, the plan is for the draft Constitution to be approved at the Brussels European Council in December. This will allow a new Treaty of Rome to be signed some time afterwards, at any rate before the European Parliament elections.
If the new Constitution is to be approved in December, it is vital for the Presidency to come forward by mid-November with clear proposals that can meet with consensus. I would stress, here, that the Convention produced a balanced package of proposals containing some important innovations. Overall, we continue to regard that package as a good basis for discussion."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples