Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.1.2-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the truth is that while I was listening to the speech by the President-in-Office of the Council I had the impression that the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference was being regarded as a rather unimportant detail within the context of six triumphal months of Presidency.
That is not the case. This Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which met yesterday evening with a great many representatives from national parliaments, has expressed a common, deeply-held feeling of disappointment and concern, together with a common determination to help in every way possible for the constitutional process to be resumed and brought to a proper conclusion. We must not play down what has happened; we must not hide behind the comforting argument that the European Community has faced other crises and come through them successfully. This time there is likely to be a deep split in the Union, on the eve of the great enlargement. This time public opinion in all our countries is likely to suffer a serious crisis of confidence in a united Europe.
Yesterday evening we talked about how to prevent the road to the constitution from remaining blocked. It is a fact that when the process of drafting the constitution or revising the Treaties stopped being a government monopoly and was entrusted to a European body on which representatives of the national and European parliaments also sat – that is to say, the Convention – the work proceeded in a European spirit and an agreement was reached that was based on the common interests of Europe. When the process was handed back to the governments with the Intergovernmental Conference, individual interests and even matters purely of national prestige prevailed in crucial areas.
What can be done? First of all, the approach that you, Mr Berlusconi, mentioned remains valid. The constitution cannot emerge out of a watered-down compromise. It would, however, be a good idea to clarify what the Italian Presidency meant by ‘a watered-down compromise’. What was the actual compromise that was avoided? A return to Nice, the intangibility of the Treaty of Nice as regards the system for calculating a majority vote? It would be useful if the outgoing Italian Presidency could tell us more clearly instead of praising all those who took part in the IGC. Secondly, we must not throw away everything that has been negotiated in recent months. Well, we still want to know what solutions have been found for the 82 points and they have to be made public, so that we can see what substance there is to these solutions. Further discussion is also required on one issue that has remained unsolved: the procedures for revising the Treaty.
Lastly, the Irish Presidency has been given an extremely limited mandate. Our message – as you, Mr Cox, have mentioned – is that the Irish Presidency should interpret this mandate in a broader and more inclusive manner, extending its consultations so as to make good use of the Convention’s advice and contributions. Mr Berlusconi, you have finished your work, but Italy’s responsibilities do not end here: as one of the founding countries, it must be a decisive driving force at this critical moment in ensuring that the process of integration continues."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples