Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.1.3-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are approaching the term initially set for the work of the IGC. The Presidency-in-Office of the Council has just reminded us of the main sticking points still remaining: the membership of the Commission, the duties of the Foreign Minister, the definition of the qualified majority in the Council, the role of the European Parliament in the budgetary procedure and the procedure for reviewing the Constitution. These are not minor issues. Some of them involve the distribution of powers between institutions and Member States, others involve the highly sensitive issue of national identities and others are aimed at not locking ourselves within almost unchangeable institutional structures.
Anybody who imagined that this type of friction would not arise in my opinion was guilty of a lack of realism. For my part, I am in no way surprised nor disturbed by these conflicts. If they were the only obstacles to be overcome in order to be able to celebrate the success of the Conference, then I would say, as the Italian Foreign Minister, Mr Frattini, has done in other places, that today we have a solution to 95% of the problems. Alas, that is not the case. Because there is clearly a dimension of this draft Constitution which appears to be as taboo for the Heads of State and Government as it was for the President of the Convention. They are the Union’s policies and, in particular, what I called on 3 September, on talking with Mr Giscard d'Estaing, the constitutionalisation of the liberal model or, to use another register, the establishment, in a fundamental law for the future Europe, of a genuine act of allegiance with NATO.
The Union only has significance for the citizens by means of the implementation of its policies. It is not me who says this; it is the Commission, in its communication of 17 September on the Constitution. However there is never any questioning of the Union’s policies, which represent three quarters of the draft Treaty. Do you believe therefore that there is unanimity on this point within public opinion? That would clearly be foolish. I will perhaps make some of you laugh by referring, to this end, to the European social forum which has just taken place in the region of Paris. It would be a great mistake, therefore, to take an ironic or indifferent view of the appeal that has just been addressed to the Union. Hundreds of debates involving 50 000 young people from every part of Europe has demonstrated their thirst for knowledge, for understanding, for change and for concrete action, expressing, at the same time as totally rejecting the liberal model, a profound desire for Europe. How should we respond to this? In view of the continuation of all the Community acquis on the single market and of the Treaty of Maastricht, they will not be satisfied with a subparagraph 2 of Article 3 which promises paradise on earth. They call for genuine changes, and it is on this basis that large numbers of the public demonstrate their sympathy.
In certain countries, such as France, the debate, which did not exist until 3 September, when we raised right here the problem of the hidden face of the draft Constitution – which you have mentioned, Mr President – has continued to spread and deepen ever since. To the extent that there are numerous observers in these countries who do not rule out the possibility of a victory for the ‘no’ in the event of the ratification of the Treaty by means of a referendum. As a general rule, you will tell me, we have not reached that point. For the moment calm still reigns within public opinion in numerous countries. Well! Should we rejoice at this? We should not trust still waters. The silent unease of today risks creating landslides in the elections of tomorrow. I much prefer a rather disordered response, though showing generosity and solidarity, and without any chance of things become worse.
This is why I would like, on behalf of my group, to appeal to those of you who shared this approach. Europe has for too long been built from the top. That is no longer the case today. We must demand vigorously that the calls from our societies be heard and taken seriously. We have little time left to react and give sense to the European project in the eyes of our citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples