Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.2.3-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I wish to thank all the Members who made observations. We have made careful note of all the speeches; we will take them into account during the 50 working days which we still have before the European Council in mid-December.
In conclusion, I would like to remind you that, in effect, we have already obtained tangible results, and this gives us hope for the further deliberations of the Intergovernmental Conference. We have obtained results in an area where there were seemingly insurmountable divisions: European defence. The work of this European Council – which will take tangible form in the Council’s work in December – has given rise to the realisation by all the countries of the European Union, including the 10 new countries which are joining us, that there can be no true European Union foreign policy which carries weight, which is authoritative, if we are not backed up by an independent European defence force.
The system of enhanced cooperation – or structured cooperation, as the case may be – has also been accepted, a system which allows certain countries which have greater military capacity and have the possibility and intention of spending on defence, to join together, but on three very clear conditions. Firstly, that this cooperation is open at all times to all Member States of the European Union which wish to participate in it; secondly, that the criteria and rules according to which this cooperation is set in motion do not stem from a decision made by the States which initially establish this cooperation, but are approved by the European Council. It will be decided in December whether this approval must – and I hope not – be given by unanimous voting or by qualified majority voting. The third condition is that European defence must not be seen as an alternative to NATO but as a complement to NATO itself, which we still consider to be one of the pillars that has ensured over half a century of peace and security in Europe.
I can only promise you all that we will approach these final 50 working days with the greatest dedication and, with regard to the Constitutional Treaty, with a clear idea in mind at all times. We will not be able – just for the pride and satisfaction – to close the Intergovernmental Conference under the Italian Presidency. Such a thing has never happened before, because the five Intergovernmental Conferences which preceded this latest one opened under one Presidency and always closed under other Presidencies. We, too, even though we are trying to arrive at a conclusion and even though we know that the European citizens will be summoned to the polls next spring and that we must therefore do everything possible, or rather, more than everything possible, in order to let them know what the roles and overall ambit within which the Parliament whose Members they will be called upon to elect will have to operate, will never agree to go so far as signing a compromise, a Constitutional Treaty, which cannot assure Europe, and by extension its citizens, that it will perform what we all believe must be its duty in the coming years. The Italian Presidency will therefore do all it can to complete the work by December, but will not allow this work to result in a watered-down Constitutional text, which favours the interests of individual States rather than defending the common interest of us all, which is, of course, the common good.
There have been remarks from many quarters regarding the achievements and work of this Presidency. I would simply like to point out that it really is difficult – and I personally have experienced this – to address all the issues involved in holding a Presidency, in the very short space of time available; all the more so for those holding the Presidency in the second half of the year, as this space of time is reduced, in practice, to just four months. In July and August, we did try to hold meetings with Heads of State or Government, but it was virtually impossible and we confined ourselves to the possibility of bilateral talks. Therefore, in terms of actual working time, for a Presidency with this mandate during the second half of the year, four months are left. Then there is the Christmas period, with the last European Council being brought forward to 12 and 13 December as a result, and so there truly is very little time available. This means that we must look closely at the proposal in the draft Constitutional Treaty which provides for presidencies lasting two and a half years, with the possibility of renewal. The hope is that it will be possible to find an influential President, who can represent our Union on the international stage with authority, and who also has the necessary time, maybe, to manage the rotating systems according to which the European Council operates, which of course cannot be done in too short a space of time.
I would remind you, however, that during this period, the Italian Presidency has endeavoured to discharge its responsibilities. Just to try to explain how many things a Presidency has to do, I will tell you what we have done: we have held over 42 meetings with government representatives of Community countries and candidate countries; we have ended several old disputes which no previous Presidency had resolved; we have chaired 26 Ministerial Council meetings, along with all the work also required from the President-in-Office personally in preparing for these European Councils in the various sectors and in coordinating the Councils themselves; we have adopted 17 regulations and directives; we have concluded three conciliation procedures with the European Parliament, which had been ongoing for some time; we have concluded or signed seven international agreements; we have begun the technical review of the texts adopted by the Convention – all of this involves numerous sittings, and almost always at night, what is more, for the President-in-Office; we have held eight Association and Cooperation Councils, including Armenia, Georgia, Jordan, Tunisia and so on; we have had 10 summits and troikas, and moreover, this very week I am going to China; we have held 30 COREPER meetings, along with all the preparatory meetings; we have had 15 working meetings with representatives of the United States, Russia, the Balkans, Latin America and other countries; lastly, we have held over 800 Council working group meetings. The future Presidency of the European Union must therefore be highly structured and must be assigned to someone with the youth and energy to sustain this level of obligations. I am too old, Mr Schulz, for this kind of thing; but thank you anyway.
With regard to the Intergovernmental Conference, I would point out that it was opened 18 days ago. The Presidency initiated a debate, which was open albeit brief, that could not and cannot be prevented. In fact, I do not believe that it is conceivable in a college of Heads of State or Government, to refuse or deny each government the opportunity to set out the position of their country on a constitutional treaty. The Presidency’s task was to listen, to expand upon each topic of discussion and it will subsequently be to condense this all into a global proposal, which is exactly what we are preparing to do.
The issues which are still unresolved, as you know, mainly concern institutional questions: the double majority voting system, the composition of the Commission – as has been widely pointed out here – the review of the Constitutional Treaty with the possible extension of qualified majority voting to other areas. I expect, within a few weeks, when we have completed the detailed – but, I repeat, open and transparent – examination of all the issues before us, to draw up a global proposal. It will be my job to contact, on a bilateral basis, the relevant persons in the different countries in order to discuss it probably at an informal meeting of the European Council, between 15 and 30 November and, at last, have the final proposal ready in mid-December.
One thing, of course, is clear, and that is that Europe and its citizens expect a high quality Constitutional Treaty; that is, an end product equal to the challenges to which we will increasingly be required to respond. We cannot accept compromises which reduce the European Union’s ability to make decisions and to make them swiftly and efficiently; we therefore cannot conceive that the defence of individual national interests – which is, however, right and understandable – could stop us having a constituent result necessary to consolidate the integration of Europe which is enlarging and uniting with an ever growing number of new Member States. In December, when the Presidency’s global proposal has been considered, expanded on and discussed, the time to decide will come. We will ask everyone to endorse, with clear and transparent responsibility, a complete constituent draft which, I repeat, must be high and noble. Failing this, European citizens will be called to vote in June without any knowledge of the new institutions and the faith of these citizens in the European Union and its progressive integration would be lost or be greatly reduced. This integration is a decisive factor in meeting the challenge of making Europe capable of taking a leading part on the international stage, capable of facing, with dignity, any other international power on equal terms, capable not only of strengthening the democracy, freedom, well-being and security of its citizens but also of disseminating these resources throughout the world. It is worthwhile considering this very point because we have all made a commitment, again recently with the Millennium Declaration, to give food, water, heath and education to those in the world who do not have them. These are important material resources but we know full well that, if they are not preceded by the first resource, that is freedom – which results in democracy as a form of government- then there is no possibility of providing and guaranteeing these resources in the long term to those citizens of the world who are still lacking them.
I believe that when assessing – as I have been doing during recent days and nights – the final articles of the Constitutional Treaty, we must be clear that this Treaty will be in force for our fellow citizens for the next 10, 20 years, and that it must give our Union, as the seat of the most ancient civilisation, as a group of states and citizens which identify with a common heritage of values, principles, cultures and civilisation, the chance to be a protagonist in the world, to carry out, together with other countries and not in conflict with other countries, the duty of exporting to the world precisely that important resource of freedom and democracy, which alone can guarantee well-being for the people, which alone can effectively guarantee a truly peaceful future for the whole world.
There are other more specific matters, which Mr Tajani has already answered in part, such as the European Prosecutor. We shall abide by the draft Constitutional Treaty. As far as the environmental dimension is concerned, I would point out that paragraph 24 of the Conclusions includes the environmental dimension in the growth process as a factor which will work as a catalyst for innovation and modernisation in key sectors such as energy and transport."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples