Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.4.3-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the European Parliament for allowing me this opportunity to illustrate the principal issues that will be discussed during the forthcoming European Council in Brussels on 12 and 13 December. This Summit, which will mark the end of the Italian six-month Presidency, is an exceptionally important event for us, not only in terms of the importance of the matters to be dealt with, but also because the decisions adopted there will set the course for the future work of the Union on a number of matters of great importance on the European agenda.
The success or failure of the constitutional negotiations will very likely determine the progress of the process of integration for the coming years as well as Europe’s ability to play an authoritative role on the world stage at a time of major political and economic challenges. For this reason, and considering the importance of what is at stake, the approach to the constitutional negotiations will have to be characterised by ample flexibility on the part of all the actors called upon to lay the foundations of the Union for the twenty-first century. With due regard for the principle of equal dignity of all Member States – also recognised at the Naples Conclave
and rightly so – it is necessary that we abandon all particularist behaviour and stop thinking in terms of ‘fair exchange’, where each individual concession is made in an attempt to gain something of equal value. This approach is contrary to the very concept of European integration and, if systematically applied, would jeopardise the principles underpinning the Union. Although fairness is an essential condition for any constitutional agreement, no one can now halt the current developments in the process of integration. Anyone who wishes to do so will have to stand accountable before the European partners, before their citizens and before the history of the integration process. Political systems are developed through dialogue and the actions of men and women, and those same men and women are fully accountable for what is said and done. From this point on, we must be aware that the adoption of the new Constitution will be ‘a success for all or a failure for the Union’. There is now, no longer, any substantial difference between national and European interests.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to focus, albeit briefly, on the issues that will be addressed by the European Council.
As far as the economic issues are concerned, in particular the objective of boosting sustainable economic growth, the European Council will mark the culmination of the long period of work that started with the Thessaloniki European Council and was further developed by the Heads of State or Government at the most recent Summit in October. Indeed, the December European Council will be called upon to approve definitively the Growth Initiative, already endorsed by the Ecofin Council of 25 November, adopting specific decisions that will be able to make a substantial contribution to improving the competitiveness of the European economic system and to the full development of the Union’s potential for growth by promoting higher levels of investment in physical capital and the development of human capital. The principal objective in this context will be to create – including through the identification of a series of projects on which work can begin in the short space of two to three years – a political catalyst that will make it possible to increase sharply the pace of infrastructure creation and the implementation of advanced research projects in order to facilitate the deployment of essential resources from both the European Investment Bank and the private sector.
From a different and more general standpoint, but still in the context of consolidating the cohesion of the internal market and boosting growth, the Italian Presidency also nurtures strong hopes that the European Council will accept the political agreement achieved by the Transport Council on the Commission’s proposal regarding the review of the TENs – which, as you will remember, provides the basic structure for the initiatives for the completion of the infrastructure network of the enlarged Europe – in consideration, not least, of the recent decisions on the increase in EU subsidies from 10% to 20% for projects on cross-border stretches.
Moving on to issues related to the Lisbon agenda, with particular reference to points concerning structural reforms, to which the European Council next spring will need to devote its energies, I would point out that the Member States of the Union, whose efforts have been unceasing in this area, will now be presented with a major opportunity for open dialogue during the extraordinary meeting of the Trilateral Social Council, which will provide a highly significant opportunity to renew the commitment of the European Union to the implementation of the European Employment Strategy. The Social Summit will be the occasion to begin an initial analysis of the results of the work carried out by the employment task force headed by Wim Kok, and to discuss the Growth Initiative, with particular regard to its effects on employment. On these bases, the participants in the Social Summit will be able to develop the debate on the links between employment growth and productivity increases highlighted by Mr Kok’s task force, evaluating, in particular, the impact – not least in terms of employment - of policies seeking to improve the competitiveness of the economic system through the enhancement of human capital and the flexibility of European socio-economic systems. The outcome of this Summit – on which Mr Berlusconi will be reporting to the European Council - will also, of course, feed into the discussion at the Council itself.
The European Council will also be a good opportunity to take stock of the situation as regards a number of important issues connected with the creation of a common area of freedom, security and justice, with particular reference to European strategies on immigration, in the light of the recommendations that emerged from the recent Brussels and Thessaloniki Summits held in October and June respectively.
The Heads of State or Government will need, first and foremost, to take note of the agreements reached at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 27 and 28 November on the main elements of a European Border Management Agency, a programme of measures specifically devoted to immigration by sea, and the insertion of biometric data in visas and residence permits. These initiatives have already been examined at the October Summit, and will now be rapidly implemented and, in some cases, finalised through the formal adoption of the relevant legislative provisions. In this regard, I wish to underline, in particular, that the European Parliament, too, will be required to express its opinion on the regulations for the Agency and on biometric data.
I am afraid that the news on the subject of asylum is not so good. In spite of the great effort made by the Italian Presidency, which has led to substantial progress in these difficult negotiations, it has not been possible to reach agreement on the directive on minimum standards for asylum procedures nor to break the deadlock that had already developed by the end of the Greek Presidency on the other directive on refugee status and subsidiary protection. The European Council can only reiterate the political importance of this matter and invite the Council to reach an agreement at least before 1 May 2004, the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
In the framework of the Union’s migratory policy, the European Council will certainly discuss the key issue of the reception and integration of legal immigrants as well, and especially the importance of encouraging inter-faith dialogue as an element of social cohesion, a subject to which the Italian Presidency devoted a Conference of Home Affairs Ministers on 30 and 31 October 2003. Migratory policy cannot, however, be effective without genuine, effective cooperation with the third countries of origin or transit of migratory flows, cooperation that needs to be developed in a constructive spirit of partnership. In this connection, I feel I should mention the positive interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, Council and Commission, which should be formalised in the next few days, on the creation of a financial and technical assistance programme for third countries on the subject of asylum, and the introduction of a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating these countries in the fight against illegal immigration, requested by the Thessaloniki European Council.
Lastly, in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the European Council will express its satisfaction at the agreement reached following the Italian Presidency’s tenacious brokerage of the framework decision on combating drug trafficking, an issue that is of particular concern to European public opinion.
The European Summit, as you know, will also have to leave sufficient room for the work of the Intergovernmental Conference, as the Heads of State or Government, accompanied by their respective Foreign Ministers, meet for the final phase. Given the importance of the matter, I would like to begin my speech with an update on the progress of the IGC, and then return to the preparations for the forthcoming European Summit.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the forthcoming European Council in Brussels takes place just a few months before the entry into force of the Accession Treaty. The Heads of State or Government will be required to provide important directions for the completion of the enlargement process, especially in the light of the reports presented by the Commission on 5 November 2003. As you know, on 17 November 2003, the Council expressed its opinion on the Commission’s monitoring reports on the accession countries’ state of readiness. The Foreign Ministers, in particular, expressed their satisfaction at the high degree of alignment achieved by these countries in the different areas of the
and we therefore expect the Heads of State or Government to endorse these positive opinions. The enlargement that will be taking place in 2004 can therefore be increasingly viewed as a complete success, confirming that the decisions taken by the Heads of State or Government at Copenhagen last December were the right ones. Of course, as was to be expected in view of the immense effort required of the accession countries, there are areas of the
where the preparatory process is not yet complete, with respect to which we need to urge our future partners to make the necessary endeavours.
The Commission’s recent strategy document shows without a doubt that Bulgaria and Romania have made considerable progress towards their entry into the Union. They are now ready to take the decisive steps that precede accession. The European Council therefore has a responsibility to facilitate these steps by mapping out in sufficient detail the road that they need to follow. This also applies to the timetable, especially the timeframe for the conclusion of the accession negotiations, the signing of the Treaty and, finally, entry into the Union. Of course, the completion of these steps depends, first and foremost, on the efforts made by the Bulgarian and Romanian governments. Precisely in order to facilitate these efforts, however, it will be necessary, in the Presidency’s view, for the Heads of State or Government to provide clear directions on the next legs of the journey, confirming, therefore, the deadlines: 2004 for the conclusion of the negotiations, 2005 for the signing of the Accession Treaties and 2007 for accession to the European Union. The European Council will also have to provide guidance on the timeframe for drawing up the financial framework for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, in particular by acting promptly on the willingness already displayed by the Commission to present it before the end of January 2004, following the same resource-allocation criteria that were adopted for the accession countries.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel that each one of us in this room has reason to welcome the considerable efforts made by Turkey in the area of institutional reform, and the additional progress it has made in respecting the Copenhagen political criteria. These positive developments therefore deserve full recognition in the conclusions of the European Council. We must not fail to provide Turkey with suggestions and encouragement to continue in this direction, nor must we fail to highlight those areas in which Ankara needs to make a particularly sustained effort. In the medium term, our goal is still to ensure that Turkey is sufficiently ready for the decision that the European Council will be adopting in a year’s time.
Lastly, as regards Cyprus, the Presidency feels that the Heads of State or Government must reiterate the appeal already addressed to the parties to achieve an agreed solution by the accession date, while pointing out at the same time that a solution to the Cyprus question would be a considerable step towards the achievement of Turkey’s desire to become part of the European Union.
As always, the European Council will devote due attention to the Union’s external relations and to the principal international issues. I will not expand on this point as we are awaiting the latest developments on the ground, particularly where crisis areas are concerned. I believe, moreover, that we will not be able to avoid dealing with matters such as the Middle East peace process, the situation in Iraq and developments in the critical dialogue with Iran.
The European Council will also bring to a close the debate on the European Security Strategy launched last June, with the adoption of an excellent document setting out the Union’s security problems and how to address them, with the aim of both giving governments guidance on making practical decisions and increasing public awareness and public support for the greater security undertaking which is now necessary throughout the European Union.
The Heads of State or Government will also be called upon to examine the report on progress in the development of the ESDP with a view to giving the next presidency a detailed mandate on the matter. Acquiring greater capacity remains our primary commitment. For this reason as well, the European Council will particularly welcome the decision to create a European agency dedicated specifically to promoting the development and acquisition of new military capacity.
To conclude, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to mention that the forthcoming European Council will also be required to adopt the first Multiannual Strategic Programme, which will be the basis for the Council’s work over the next three years.
Just a few weeks off the end of the six-month Italian Presidency I am pleased to report on the developments following the Naples Conclave.
Firstly, I would like to confirm that the overall stance of the Italian Presidency remains that which my government has often expressed before this House and in the context of the IGC. In accordance with that stance, the comprehensive proposal presented reflects our intention to respect the constituent legacy of the Convention, confining ourselves to proposing clarifications or alterations to the Convention’s draft in light of the comments made by the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. I believe I can safely say that many of the Presidency’s proposals have been welcomed with broad appreciation, which has allowed us to bring the positions of Member States closer together with due regard for the overall balance of the Convention’s draft. In addition to the substantial progress made on a number of specific issues, it has become clear that some persisting divergences on specific provisions will be resolved when an agreement on the Union’s future institutional framework is achieved. Indeed this is the area in which the greatest disagreement remains, above all as regards the calculation of the qualified majority in the Council and the composition of the Commission.
Detailed analysis of the results of the Conclave reveals the progress achieved on the following points in our proposal package: the insertion of a reference to equality between men and women and to the protection of persons belonging to minority groups in the provision on the Union’s values; the reaffirmation of the primacy of European Union law; the need to make the acts of the European Council subject to jurisdictional control insofar as the European Council is defined in the Constitutional Treaty as a Union institution. Points of convergence have been recorded in the extremely sensitive area of justice and home affairs too, where, in the introduction of qualified-majority voting, the specific features of certain national legal systems will have to be taken into account and safeguard mechanisms considered. The various proposals drawn up by the Presidency on the specific policies of the third part of the draft Constitutional Treaty have been the subject of in-depth discussion. Differing positions persist in many cases between the Member States on the basis of well-known points of divergence. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that various criticisms made in this regard will melt away at the point when agreement is reached on the major themes of the constitutional negotiations.
The following are issues that will require further debate: the persisting divergence between the countries intending not to make concessions as regards abandoning unanimity voting in matters such as foreign policy, taxation and social security and the Member States that consider the phasing-in of qualified-majority voting in those areas a key element of the future Constitutional Treaty; the manifold, and often divergent, requests of Member States for changes to the provisions concerning the budget, the multiannual financial framework, own resources and economic governance. Here, the Presidency is seeking to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the interinstitutional balance and voting rules proposed by the Convention. The idea of a simplified revision procedure for Part III, Title III of the Constitutional Treaty continues to meet with resistance while greater convergence seems to have emerged on the ‘passerelle clause’ on the basis of formulas that involve national parliaments too. The Presidency intends to propose further discussions on all these matters in the course of the final meetings of the IGC.
The Conclave has, moreover, led to significant progress in the definition of the ESDP in the future Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, it has been possible to achieve a new draft of Article I-40, part 7 on the mutual assistance clause, a description of structured cooperation in Article III-213 and, most importantly, the presentation of a Protocol containing the criteria for participation in such cooperation. This group of texts will be examined anew at the IGC ministerial meeting of 8 December. Nevertheless, the exchange of views that took place during the Conclave has revealed the fact that there is convergence on an increasing number of points in this sensitive area.
The debate on the institutional framework of the future Union has confirmed that this remains the most sensitive subject in the entire negotiations. The Conclave was useful for overcoming some points of divergence and, most importantly, for fostering calmer, more constructive dialogue. The salient elements of the discussion can be summarised as follows. The request by some Member States to raise the minimum threshold of national representatives to the European Parliament was received positively, on the condition that the total number of seats does not increase. On the matter of the presidency of the Council formations, convergence was recorded along the lines recommended by the Convention, even though some Member States still have doubts regarding joint presidencies, to which they would prefer elected leaders. On this matter, the Italian Presidency reserved the right to reflect on further changes. The possible solution is to have three Member States holding the Presidency for 18 months. The procedures for implementing these solutions could be the subject of a European Council decision rather than being regulated by a special protocol. The reactions to the Presidency’s proposal on an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs – aimed at clarifying several specific aspects of the functioning of the ‘double hat’ formula with due regard for the spirit of the Convention’s draft – have confirmed that the arrangement we have chosen is the only feasible one. Indeed, our proposals seek to overcome the criticisms of both those who fear that this new institutional figure may become the Council’s ‘Trojan horse’ in the Commission, weakening the Commission’s powers in matters of foreign policy, and the criticisms of those Member States which would like to free the Minister from the constraints of the Commission’s collegiality by emphasising the Minister’s role as Council representative. The middle road we suggested appears to be the only one which can ensure that a compromise will be reached in the end, although it does leave two major issues still to be resolved: the persistent opposition of some countries to giving the Minister for Foreign Affairs presidency of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, and the call from other Member States not to give the new institutional figure the title ‘Minister’ but the more modest title ‘Representative’, which is a clear retreat - and not just a symbolic retreat - from the provisions of the Convention’s draft. The lengthy debate on the composition of the Commission after 2009 saw the renewed proposal of positions and arguments already known. In the course of the negotiations, there will have to be reconciliation between those who advocate a streamlined, agile, efficient Commission unhampered by intergovernmental constraints and those who favour a Commission which is representative of all cultures and national viewpoints, and thus composed of one Commissioner with full voting rights for each Member State. The proposals on the table will have to be examined in a long-term perspective with a view to the institutional needs of a Union that, in 10 to 15 years’ time, is likely to be even larger and will, therefore, have to be endowed with decision-making abilities that are adequate and easy for the citizens to understand. The debate on the issue of the calculation of the qualified majority in the Council has made the range of positions in the field even clearer and more distinct: some States ardently defend the Nice system; others consider the transition to double-majority voting indispensable. Of these, a number of countries would prefer a totally symmetrical double majority, in other words, 50% or 60% both of the Member States and of the Union population. In the face of positions which still differ widely, we will need clear thinking and farsightedness. To this end, to reiterate what I said before, I would underline the need for the various proposals to be examined with a view to the long term after 2009.
The IGC ministerial meeting of 8 December 2003 and the bilateral meetings which the Presidency will be stepping up in the coming weeks will therefore have to concentrate, first and foremost, on the institutional issues in order to make the best possible preparation for the final Conference meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government scheduled to open on 12 December 2003."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples