Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.6.3-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Antonione, ladies and gentlemen, the forthcoming European Council in Brussels will be the last in a highly eventful year. Indeed, almost every week brings with it developments and decisions that will have a major impact on our future. Last week was no exception.
With a choice between these two opposing options, Europe is in danger of being relegated to the sidelines in world affairs, surrounded by other powerful actors. In its current form, the draft Constitution gives a united Europe the means to act more effectively. Nothing less, but nothing more. It does not create a political project for the future. Hence, the key question facing national leaders at the Intergovernmental Conference summit is not whether to commit themselves to an ambitious European political project. The key question is whether, in the future, they will find the collective ability to adopt the necessary instruments which any European project will need.
The Convention preserved and improved the balance of powers between the various European Union institutions. A strong Commission is indispensable for impartial application of the Union’s rules and so the Commission’s powers in key areas such as state-aid control should not be watered down at the last minute. Our goal of becoming a genuine Union of states and peoples finds expression in the double-majority system proposed for Council decision-making. Democratic legitimacy has been reinforced by strengthening the role of the European Parliament in legislative, political and budgetary matters, and the Court of Justice's role in upholding the rule of law has, in part, been strengthened. One thing is certain, ladies and gentlemen: the Commission will hold out against any attempt to weaken the powers of the European Parliament, especially in budgetary matters, right to the end of the Intergovernmental Conference.
How can the European Parliament and the Commission be expected to explain and promote to the citizens a Constitution which Parliament itself would have rejected? There is no explanation that would stand up.
For its own part, the Commission welcomes the Presidency’s acknowledgement that making a distinction between Commissioners with and without voting powers is too complex and, above all, will not work. There is a simple solution which preserves the equality of all Commissioners: a Commission made up of one Commissioner per Member State, with a more decentralised decision-making structure, and a system of checks and balances to ensure total collegiality. This is the solution that the Commission wants to see in the Constitution.
Lastly, the double-majority voting system proposed by the Convention
50% of the Member States representing 60% of the population - is simple and fair. Any change should be aimed at facilitating the College’s decision-making process. Of course, the Commission’s preference remains a system based on 50% of the Member States representing at least 50% of the population. Under no circumstances should the Intergovernmental Conference decide on a voting system that would make decision-making in the Council even more difficult than under the Nice system.
There is simply no justification for a Constitution ‘worse than Nice’. Moreover, in Brussels, we must, at all costs, avoid the kind of last-minute bartering that would serve only to undermine the credibility of the Constitution before we have even had a chance to present it. Remember that the first referendum on the Constitution will be held a mere six months after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, before winding up – and without entering into a debate that will take place in this House at a later date – I should like to make a few brief comments on last week’s Ecofin Council meeting.
My assessment is based on both the substance of the decision and the procedure. As regards the substance, the Council reached overall agreement on deficit reduction plans, which, moreover, are in line with those proposed by the two countries concerned. The Council therefore accepted the commitments given by Germany and France that they would consolidate their 2005 budgets. From a procedural standpoint, on the other hand, the affair has more serious implications because the Council has opted for an entirely intergovernmental course of action instead of that mapped out by the institutional procedures. Here, I must repeat my basic criticism: we should not take short cuts whenever the rules of the Pact and the Treaty, rules that were agreed unanimously, become demanding or inconvenient. The usefulness and value of the Treaty and the Pact depend on the certainty of the rules to which we all – Commission, Parliament, Council and Member States – must adhere.
This is such a serious matter that I do not wish to gloss over it. My hope is, however, that, as has so often happened in the history of the Union, a serious crisis will give rise to the most innovative and lasting solutions. I therefore believe we should look ahead, fixing our eyes on two objectives: one for the immediate term and one for the future. In the immediate term, I am sure that the Member States will see the Council's final declaration as an indication of a greater, more resolute undertaking in the area of growth and stability, and that they will realise that the rules have to be applied systematically. For our part, we shall continue to discharge our duty by applying the Treaty and the rules of the Pact. It is our responsibility, particularly in this phase, to ensure absolute equality of treatment for all Member States. Furthermore, budgetary discipline and stability are essential to Economic and Monetary Union. In any case, the affair also teaches us a lesson for the future. You will all remember the critical remarks I made a year ago. I did not mean to condemn the Pact; my remarks were intended to be a strong appeal for the Pact to become a better thought-out instrument for coordinating budgetary policies at European level. Now that the single currency is a practical reality, the markets and all the citizens need to be able to rely on proper economic governance, for which we need a genuine economic policy. We have to embark on a new phase of consolidating and managing our achievements and fitting them to the new situation, but always in a disciplined manner and, above all, always treating everybody equally. We must restore the credibility of our instruments of economic governance and of the rule of law now that we are in the midst of a debate on our new Constitution.
Before turning to the debate on the Constitution, I should like to focus briefly on another topical issue for the European Union. The forthcoming European Council will be preceded – as Mr Antonione said – by an extraordinary Tripartite Social Summit, to be attended by the Heads of State of the troika and representatives of the social partners and the Commission. Indeed, it is vital to involve the social partners at this stage of the constitutional process and it is essential that we listen to their points of view. The involvement of trades union and employers is the best guarantee of success for any initiative promoting employment.
As early as a year ago, the Commission took an initial step in this direction by presenting specific proposals for strengthening and coordinating economic policies and interpreting the Pact in a way that would make it both more flexible and more rigorous. This line of action proposed by the Commission was approved by the European Council. Moreover, our contribution to the Convention already contained a section on strengthening and coordinating European economic policy, and parts of our proposals were taken up by the Intergovernmental Conference. These tentative steps forward cannot be called into question now.
Ecofin’s decisions, however, show that the real problem still to be resolved is the genuine weakness of our present system of European economic governance. The real challenge facing us is how to solve this problem. The Commission will now take careful stock of the situation and prepare a forward-looking initiative
to take on that challenge. Indeed, in my view, it is not enough to revise the rules for implementing the Pact. We must have an in-depth debate on fiscal policy in the wider framework of the general monitoring and coordination of economic policy. Above all, we need to link budgetary policy more closely to the more general objective of boosting growth potential without jeopardising the long-term sustainability of public finances. To this end, we should be more proactive in using the broad economic policy guidelines and the Stability and Growth Pact together as instruments to coordinate economic policies in a way that will secure the smooth functioning of Economic and Monetary Union and ensure that we achieve the Lisbon objectives. We need, therefore, to strike a new balance between these two instruments in order to preserve budgetary discipline while, at the same time, stimulating growth.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the few days left before the Brussels European Council, we must act with determination and optimism if we are to achieve the major goals we have set ourselves. If we do that, the Constitution now taking shape will clarify our basic objectives, define the European Union’s area of action more precisely and make the working of our institutions simpler and more transparent. I am confident that we shall pass on to future generations a Union that is not only larger and more influential but also more coherent, more democratic and closer to the European citizens. We must not settle for less at this great, historic time.
The meeting will address two issues which are at the heart of the Lisbon Strategy: our Growth Initiative and the European Employment Strategy. The key moment will be the presentation of the task force’s report on employment by Mr Wim Kok. The report describes how we can respond to the major changes taking place in the economy and the labour market. Its main points include the need for firms and workers to become more adaptable, for more investment in human capital and, lastly, for new social dynamics to sustain reforms and speed up their implementation. The Commission will take account of the task force’s report and recommendations when it drafts the Joint Employment Report for presentation to the Spring Council next year.
Mr President, I shall now turn to the central theme of my speech, the Intergovernmental Conference, which is entering its final stages and of which Mr Antonione has already given an extremely balanced, commendable overview. The stakes will be high at the European Council in Brussels on 12 and 13 December. In the decisions taken we will see the fruit of the new Convention method, proposed by the European Parliament and the Commission and approved by the Heads of State or Government at the Laeken European Council in December 2001. Any return to the method of intergovernmental bargaining we witnessed in the early hours of the Nice summit would represent a political failure for the European Union. Public opinion would no longer accept it. The key task for the Intergovernmental Conference is now to decide how the enlarged Union can achieve its goals and increase its decision-making capacity.
The European Union is faced with three major challenges. Firstly, it needs strong policies and better European coordination aimed at economic growth, job-creation and social protection. Then we have to give a common response to the international challenges related to security, freedom and justice. Thirdly, we must join forces in order to shoulder our global responsibilities and promote our values and interests.
Article 3 of the draft Constitution solemnly sets out the Union’s objectives along these lines. The Convention did not, of course, produce a perfect Constitution to address these tasks. All the same, the result matches the proposals contained in the Laeken Declaration, maybe even exceeding expectations. The Intergovernmental Conference has clearly so far been more occupied with internal disputes between Member States than with creating the right instruments to respond to Europe’s needs and problems.
It is certainly disappointing that there was no progress whatsoever on adoption of a procedure making amendment of the policy part of the Constitution possible. The Commission will support all the Presidency’s efforts to achieve this objective. Considering the new challenges that we will face, the Constitution cannot and must not become a constraint on future action. The only significant progress made so far on the work of the Convention has been the definition of structured cooperation in the field of defence. For all other issues, there is still a danger that the Intergovernmental Conference might take steps backwards towards the intergovernmental method. This is also true of European cooperation on criminal law, at precisely a time when all the leaders are aware of the threat of international crime and terrorism.
Furthermore, some want to undermine the credibility of the Minister for Foreign Affairs – as Mr Antonione made clear – while paying lip service to the need for Europe to become stronger and play a leading role on the world stage. Some ministers maintain that more intergovernmentalism would strengthen economic policy coordination, while what is really needed is a greater European ability to put economic governance at the service of the growth strategy.
Some countries would even like to reintroduce the right of veto in areas where the Convention has already abolished it, in trade policy for instance. Clearly, therefore, there are only two options: a divided Europe that is only a spectator on the world political stage or a united Europe contributing to peace, growth and sustainable development."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples