Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.6.3-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this debate is becoming very emotional, but my comments are not in that vein.
I think the Intergovernmental Conference is turning out as could have been expected. I am not at all surprised by the developments in the Conference. I would like to say to the President-in-Office of the Council that I think that the Italian Presidency is doing well in some areas. I think good progress is being made on certain subjects, such as the social clause. This was something we did not succeed on in the Convention. I think it would be a positive step if your Presidency succeeded in putting this on the agenda, and we could then see how many Socialist governments support the idea.
I also think that there are other matters on which you will manage to obtain reasonable agreements – the question of a European Public Prosecutor, for example. If your proposal entailed a European Public Prosecutor who would deal with matters affecting the Union’s financial interests, I think this House could accept it, provided that the Public Prosecutor was appointed using the ordinary legislative procedure rather than by a unanimous decision. You have a consensus proposal here which, I think, will allow us to move forward.
There are, however, some other issues where the Italian Presidency has not sought to find a compromise solution, and I do not understand their reasoning. Take the question of double majority, for example. I do not see why the Italian Presidency has refused to come up with any alternative proposal to the Convention text when they have done so in several other cases.
Time is marching on. I believe there is only one more ministerial meeting scheduled before the definitive Council meeting, and I am not sure we will achieve a result that will be acceptable to all parties. Obviously, in political terms, this is not really the best time to be addressing the subject, since the breakdown of the Stability Pact seems to suggest that there are two different standards in use in the European Union – and I would appreciate it if you would pass these comments on to Mr Tremonti – which is not really helping to create a climate conducive to obtaining a consensus.
Unlike a previous speaker, however, I do feel that we have to complete our work by 13 December. I do not think that having more time to consult our grandparents – to use the words of my fellow Member, who is not here at the moment – will lead to a better result. I do not think it will work. In my view, the situation is cut and dried: we are all familiar with the solutions that have been put forward, we know what alternatives are available, and I think we now have to give a political signal by approving the Constitution on 13 December. That is the political signal we need to give.
I think enlargement is another reason why we need to do so. Enlargement is the big gamble for Europe and for this Parliament, and has to go hand-in-hand with the political recasting embodied by the Constitution. It would be very hard to explain if enlargement were completed on 1 May 2004 but for some reason there was no Constitution.
I therefore urge you to persevere, and call on the national governments to demonstrate pride in the European Constitution, to forget national interests and consider that what we need at the present time is a Constitution for a Union of both States and citizens, which will allow us to work together in the exciting period the coming years represent.
So, keep up the good work, President-in-Office of the Council. Keep on trying to reach agreement. Keep on working towards completion on 13 December."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples