Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-006"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.1.3-006"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I regret the unavoidable absence of President Prodi but, as you know, he has official obligations elsewhere.
Naturally, Parliament, the Council, the Commission and everyone else has to continue to exercise care. For instance, the Italian presidency has helpfully made it clear that some of the texts circulating in the final hours of the December European Council – which some regarded as presidency compromises – have no formal status. Most of those suggestions would, as it happens, have been unacceptable to either the Commission or Parliament or, indeed, both. We are certain that the Irish presidency will, characteristically, show its own constructive sensitivity, regardless of the hour of the day or of the night.
The House is fully aware of the controversial issues that remain. The Commission has made it clear on many occasions that it holds the view that the compromise reached in the Convention on the 'double-hatted' status of an EU foreign affairs representative should not be changed, that the enhanced budget powers of the European Parliament should not be altered, that the scope of qualified majority voting should not be reduced. The Commission has also made clear its opinion, particularly when we are only weeks away from a European Union with 25 Member States, the practical case for an extension of qualified majority voting is stronger than ever.
On that particular point, the House will know that the Commission considers that the double-majority proposal of the Convention is the best approach for the definition of QMV. That also reflects practicality and proportionality. It is clear that full and necessary articulation of arguments will ensure that decision-making in the enlarged Union is never easy. To make effective agreement on necessary decisions even harder by fixing a QMV threshold which is so high that the focus is on forming blocking minorities rather than on reaching consensus would, however, be a formula for
and the Union as a whole could not benefit from that.
The Commission's view continues to be that a double majority of 50% of the Member States representing 50% of the population would be both clear and balanced. However, the Commission accepted the Convention's compromise of 50% of Member States and 60% of population, although, I have to say, the Commission still believes that a 50% and 55% formulation would fit the purpose of effective decision-making still better.
Whatever compromise is eventually reached, it is obvious that no one should forget that the draft constitution will need approval and ratification through the democratic processes of 25 Member States. An arrangement that increases complexity and intensifies the difficulties of making the enlarged European Union work well would hardly be likely to attract understanding or support in either parliaments or plebiscites. We are certain that the Presidency, the majority in this Parliament, and a wide spectrum of governmental and public opinion understands that.
We wish the Irish presidency well in its sustained efforts in the interests of a modern Union and its citizens.
The Commission welcomes the opportunity provided by the discussion this morning to draw attention to the importance of a satisfactory agreement on the proposed constitution. Obviously, the analysis made at Laeken still holds good and the enlarged Union still needs reform in order to ensure that it can work in the public interest with higher standards of efficiency and with greater democracy and transparency. This is plainly unfinished business, and, equally plainly, it must be tackled with determination. In the unique association of democracies that makes up the European Union careful deliberation is always necessary but no constructive interests are really served by prolonged stalemate. That is why the Commission fully supports the approach taken by the Irish presidency. Minister Roche's report is clear. The Commission is convinced that the presidency has done, and is still doing, exactly what is necessary.
After the breakdown of the Brussels European Council, the only realistic course was to proceed in the way followed by the Irish presidency and to sound out the prospect for progress through bilateral consultations. It is an arduous course and no doubt Mr Roche and his colleagues have the air miles to prove it. However, our Irish colleagues have a true talent for promoting understanding – except, of course, where English rugby is concerned – and we hope that their diligent efforts will bear fruit and that the presidency report to the European Council will be able to conclude that all delegations are disposed to sign the constitutional treaty before the European elections.
Such progress will require some willingness to revise original negotiating positions, but the Commission continues to believe that such developments are feasible and that the conclusion of a constitutional treaty can be achieved under the present presidency. As Mr Roche said on this issue – it is not always true in politics but it is in this case – time will not change the basics or make a resolution easier.
One of the factors which propels such a view is recognition of the reality that, if the IGC was not satisfactorily concluded this year, the prospects for establishing a constitution for the Union will begin to appear remote. The momentum provided by the Convention will then manifestly continue to diminish and, in the very nature of politics, debate about the Treaty will become entangled with other controversies, such as those which naturally and inevitably will, for instance, be associated with the financial perspectives. No democrat could, or would, fear the prospect of multiple debates, but clarity and rigour in all discussions would obviously be served best by ensuring that each salient issue is tackled on its own terms and merits.
Meanwhile, the rational desire to conclude the IGC successfully and with reasonable dispatch should not deflect us from the course which Parliament and the Commission have followed on the content of the constitution. I am sure that the Commission reflects the majority opinion in this House by emphasising that the text drafted by the Convention should not be diluted.
We have all heard the maxim 'better no constitution than a bad constitution' and no sensible person could possibly disagree with that. But those can hardly be considered to be the sole true alternatives. The risk is surely not a bad constitution, since it is highly unlikely that the IGC would agree to something that was noxious or ineffectual. The real risk is rather that the Convention draft becomes amended to the point where, cumulatively, almost accidentally, the ambition and the attractiveness of the constitution dwindles and the singular opportunity of clarifying and developing the Union provided by drafting a constitution slips away. The representatives and, more importantly, the people of the European Union would then inherit problems rather than answers.
That is why the basis for the constitution should continue to be the text presented by the Convention. Obviously, on some points, improvement is possible. For instance, debates in the months before the Brussels European Council showed that the fact that a proposed change attracts widespread support from Member States does not necessarily make it a move in the wrong direction, as some seemed to contend at the time.
Meanwhile, in the Commission – and, I emphasise, explicitly in the interests of the Union – we were glad to note that most, if not all, delegations realised that making a distinction between voting and non-voting Commissioners would simply not work. We trust, therefore, that no variations on that impractical and divisive theme will reappear."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"stasis"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples