Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.1.3-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission views the progress of the work of the Intergovernmental Conference with a feeling of growing concern and disquiet. It is, of course, normal for the shape of a genuine compromise not to emerge until fairly late on in an intergovernmental conference, but what is not normal is for us to have an Intergovernmental Conference at which every meeting throws up more questions than it answers. The Commission totally shares the view often heard in public debate that the very success of the Intergovernmental Conference is now at stake. I support the observations of the Italian Presidency. The IGC is now moving into a crucial phase, and one thing is quite clear: we need to prevent the overall compromise worked out by the Convention from being damaged in a tug of war between the interests of individual Member States, and we need to protect the institutional balance arrived at over 16 months of debate.
I would also like to ask honourable Members to have some sympathy for the position of the new Member States in the Intergovernmental Conference, a position that sometimes attracts criticism. I hope you will understand that it has not been all that easy for the governments and parliaments of the new Member States, just a few weeks after successful referenda on membership of the European Union, with referendum campaigns based on the Treaty of Nice, to have to explain to their electorate now that the basic principles of their accession to the European Union are about to change again.
In saying that, I have the interests of my Polish friends in particular at heart, as they are adopting a very robust position on majority voting. It seems to me that there has been a misunderstanding during the public debate in Poland, to the effect that what is at stake is the relative importance of the individual Member States. That is not the case. The new arrangements are based on the principle that all the Member States are equal in status. A decision is only valid if it is supported by a majority of the Member States, which means that each and every Member State has the same rights, and that Poland has the same rights as all the others.
The second factor – the concept that this majority must also represent a majority of the population of the Union – provides the democratic legitimacy needed for such a process. The larger we become, the greater our responsibility will be, and the more important the substance of the decisions we have to take, the more necessary democratic legitimacy will be. That is the heart of the matter here. I hope that in the time remaining this point will influence the debate in Poland.
Finally, I would like to say that in reaching a compromise it will ultimately have to be taken into account that this draft Constitutional Treaty has to be ratified in 25 countries. I am mentioning that with particular reference to the debate about the size and composition of the Commission.
I would like to reassure this House that the Commission backs Parliament when it comes to translating the essential architecture and balance of the draft Constitutional Treaty into reality, and to achieving the correct relationship between the Community method and the sovereignty of the Member States, and between action at national level and the democratic legitimacy of the Community institutions. The Convention's draft points in the right direction. The Commission will do everything in its power to make sure that this process is pursued to its conclusion.
Let me remind you that there was a good reason why this draft Constitutional Treaty was worked out by a Convention, and not, as is usually the way, by a conference of diplomats and officials. It was the result of the shock caused by the Nice process. We need to be fully aware that we cannot steer a course towards a summit at which the Heads of State and Government once again sit together night after night nitpicking over the figures, only to achieve a result that they themselves find shocking.
We accepted the Treaty of Nice – and both Parliament and the Commission had reservations about it – because we needed it. We needed that treaty in order to bring the massive historical project of enlargement to a conclusion on time. I believe, however, that no one in this Chamber believes that the Treaty of Nice would be adequate to really make a European Union of 25 or 27 Member States genuinely viable. We all know that we need a better treaty, and that time is pressing. That is why the Commission is anxious for the work to be brought to a conclusion on time. The enlargement process will be completed by 1 May 2004, and by then we need to have reached political agreement on how we are to work together.
As regards the work now ahead of us, as the Commission sees it the main issue is to maintain and defend the considerable progress represented by the draft Constitutional Treaty. In our view, the key progress made relates to the double majority, the introduction of the 50/60 rule, the extension of the use of majority voting, and giving the European Parliament a stronger role in the legislative process.
Given that overall the Constitutional Treaty represents a very carefully balanced compromise, each of the various sections in it must also be seen as striking a balance with its own internal logic, the details of which cannot be put at risk. With reference to the discussion at yesterday's meeting of Foreign Ministers and to the statement we have just heard from the Italian Presidency, I would like to make the dual role of the future EU Foreign Minister very clear. If we want to guarantee that the Union's foreign policy actions and its internal policies are coherent, it is essential for the EU Foreign Minister not only to have a mandate from the Council, but also, as Vice-President of the Commission, to be an integral part of the Commission, with full voting rights. A Foreign Minister with, as it were, guest status within the Commission cannot play the required role here. Any sort of special status for the Foreign Minister within the Commission would not sit well alongside his double legitimacy.
The finely balanced outcome of the Convention is also reflected in the three components of the Union's finances: own resources, multiannual financial framework, and the annual budget process. Anyone concerned about a successful outcome from the Intergovernmental Conference should be careful not to unpick these agreements again. In this area the Commission totally supports the idea that the Convention's draft also needs to be protected against the interests of those who see their national responsibilities as being pre-eminent, to put it very delicately.
The Italian Presidency referred to a very important point that I would like to specifically support, namely the simplified treaty amendment procedure. The Commission sees this as being essential.
The Union should not let itself be forced into a constitutional corset that could become too tight for it in just a few years' time. I believe that the Italian Presidency's proposals point in the right direction.
Finally, I would like to make one more comment about the political difficulties we will face if the Intergovernmental Conference reaches a successful conclusion, something we all hope for and support. We will then find ourselves in a situation in which a very far-reaching, very complicated and very fundamental treaty will have to be ratified in 25 Member States, and will have to overcome the hurdle of a referendum in a good many Member States. No one would be surprised if it proved quite difficult to clear this hurdle, particularly in the new Member States. We need to be aware of that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples