Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050608.3.3-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the forthcoming European Council, set to take place on 16 and 17 June, must meet two key challenges for the EU head on. The first of these is to send out a message to our fellow citizens that there is convergence between the Member States regarding the process of ratifying the Constitutional Treaty, and the second is to provide the Union with a stable financial framework for the next few years.
With regard to substance, I should like to reiterate that we need to retain the overall rationale and balance of the Commission’s initial proposals. However, this is a negotiation. We recognise that means changes to the proposals and that those changes are inevitable. There is always a risk that, in order to reach agreement, we may be tempted to go down the road of undermining policy coherence in order to satisfy particular interests. I would hope that we can resist, or at least minimise, that temptation.
The Commission’s proposals were a careful balance between tried and tested policies and the Union’s new policy proposals. We would be doing the Union a disservice if we undermined that balance. The Union’s budget exists to deliver common, set political objectives.
At the European Council we will doubtless have detailed and sometimes difficult negotiations, but if we can keep in mind that we are talking about what the Union really has to do, it is possible to reach an agreement that will allow the Union to go forward effectively. I would like the Commission and Parliament to remain in close contact in the run-up to and during the last stage of negotiations so that together we can contribute to the best possible deal for the Union.
The Luxembourg presidency has led discussions into their final phase. It has proposed a new ‘negotiating box’. Next Sunday we will have the final ministerial conclave; on the eve of the summit we will have the trialogue between the institutions. We must commend the presidency for its great efforts and determination in finding a deal. It is true that the proposal now on the table is closer to the minimalist approach favoured by some Member States than to the position of Parliament. As I indicated yesterday, I hope that the presidency will carefully consider the very balanced views expressed by Parliament and take due account of them in the final round of negotiations.
I hope an agreement will be reached that shows that Europe is maintaining its ambition and solidarity.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the results of the referenda in France and the Netherlands are, for the European Commission – and also, I am sure, for the majority of Parliament – a source of concern, given that those results risk weakening the EU and that those two countries have always been important players in our common project.
Throughout its history, the EU has experienced many difficulties, but the commitment and conviction of its leaders have enabled us to overcome them and to relaunch the European project. Perhaps you will allow me, Mr President, to share with Parliament certain thoughts brought to mind by the parallels between the current situation and the one we experienced 50 years ago, when the project of the European Defence Community failed and the European leaders, instead of bringing an end to their ambitions for Europe, found the best way of overcoming this problem.
We must now honestly try to understand why two countries as important as France and the Netherlands voted no. It is very important that these concerns were expressed in a democratic vote following a very lively debate. For a democrat, that is a positive element in itself. We must all respect the expression of the citizens’ will, but we must honestly recognise that this debate was often mixed up with national issues and that, sometimes, the arguments exchanged had little to do with the European Constitution.
Besides certain purely national considerations, the fact is that popular votes have become opportunities to express fears, which we must take seriously, in particular the citizens’ fears faced with the European social model, with decolonisation, with the fact that Europe is moving too fast and expanding too far or is even sometimes connected with the threat of globalisation. Even if we admit that the referendum debates were to a certain extent contaminated by other subjects, we must recognise in all honesty that this vote is an expression of dissatisfaction with the EU and with the European project in those two countries. That is why, at Berlaymont, the Presidents of the European Parliament and of the European Council and I emphasised, in our joint declaration following the French referendum, that the relevant national and European politicians must do more to explain the true scale of what is at stake, and the nature of the answers that only Europe can offer, and that we must ask ourselves how each among us can contribute to a better understanding of this project, which cannot have its own legitimacy without listening to its citizens.
The content of the debates and the results of the two referenda thus force us to seriously consider our ability – both that of the European institutions and that of the national institutions and authorities – to mobilise the support and commitment of Europeans. We must reconnect the EU with the citizens and the citizens with the EU. This is absolutely imperative, and I will have the opportunity to return to this subject in the coming weeks.
Yet whilst these issues are undoubtedly important, we must not overlook other items on the agenda, such as the integrated guidelines for implementing the Lisbon strategy and the sustainable development strategy. There is one issue that I should like to bring to the fore: that of development aid in the context of the Millennium Goals. Our internal problems must not divert us from our external responsibilities, particularly with regard to developing countries.
Today, though, the most urgent question that we must answer in the face of a situation that could put the brakes on European integration is this: how can we bring about a new political consensus and take advantage of this difficult moment to relaunch Europe? This is a political difficulty, and we must resolve it politically. We must not avoid looking reality in the face.
I would like, straight away, to emphasise that ratification is above all a matter for the Member States. Twenty-five governments signed the Constitutional Treaty. It is up to them to decide when and how to ratify it and whether they want to honour the commitment they made or withdraw from it. Ten Member States have so far ratified the Constitution, including one, namely Spain, in a very clear referendum. In two other Member States, the referenda came out negatively. However, other Member States have not yet expressed their position and I think that all the Member States of the EU have the right to express their position on equal terms.
Nevertheless, the essential thing now, in my view, is for the Member States to respond together to the current situation and for us to avoid unilateral, individual, disparate actions. That is why I asked them to wait for next week’s European Council to adopt a position. I note that the governments have largely demonstrated restraint and, where it was considered unavoidable to adopt a position for internal reasons, they have retained a sense of moderation and the possibility of a debate and of a collective decision.
The fate of the Constitution is now in the hands of the Member States. It is important for the Heads of State or Government to analyse the current situation and to send a clear message to all Europeans. I am convinced that it is possible and desirable for this message to translate the desire to reach a new political consensus in Europe. Analysis of the current situation shows that there are two possible – and I would stress, possible – extreme solutions that, in my opinion, must be avoided at all costs.
The first inappropriate solution would be to say that nothing has happened, that everything can continue – business as usual – as if these two negative votes in such important countries had never happened. In my opinion, this would demonstrate an attitude that is self-absorbed, irresponsible, arrogant and disrespectful of the will expressed by a majority of the citizens of two countries that we have a duty to listen to.
Another inappropriate extreme solution would be to abandon the draft Constitutional Treaty straight away. This would involve ignoring the fact that ten Member States have already ratified it and that the no votes in two States, although they express a negative position with regard to the Constitution, nonetheless do not constitute support for an alternative project and also include some contradictions.
Therefore, if we are going to avoid these two extreme solutions, we must look for another solution. And I think that we must now start to create the conditions that will allow a solution to be found that results in the emergence of a new political consensus, because – I say again – it is in political terms that we must find a solution. There is no administrative, bureaucratic or technocratic solution. We must have a political debate in Europe in order to reach a political solution for the future of our Europe.
Without calling the draft Constitutional Treaty into question, we must move Europe on and avoid paralysis. This solution can only result from an in-depth analysis and from an open debate. It must necessarily be drawn up in a spirit of compromise between the 25 Member States within the European Council, also with the full participation of the European Commission and having listened carefully to the European Parliament, and also to the national parliaments and our societies.
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, as we have always said, there is no plan B. It does not exist. It has never existed. But could we perhaps talk about a plan D? D for democracy and dialogue. A plan D to listen to the people; a plan through which the European and national institutions devote themselves to an exercise of listening to and debating with the citizens and civil society, in order to deepen our analysis of a complex situation. This should enable us to take a more consensual path, particularly because it is more representative of the will of all our citizens.
In view of the scepticism expressed by some of our fellow citizens, we must show that the European Union can, now more than ever, respond to their concerns and to the many challenges of the new millennium. Admittedly, the results of the two referenda last week constitute a serious problem, but it is not the first time that Europe has encountered problems and it will certainly not be the last. Europe is necessary, now more than ever. That is why the Commission is continuing, and will continue, to take important decisions that will bring real benefits to all the citizens of Europe, because the political life of the EU is continuing, even after the referenda. We have strategic objectives to implement, which have also been supported by the European Parliament and by the European Council. They respond to the citizens’ concerns, as they focus on prosperity, solidarity and security.
In 2005, which is already considered the year of development, Europe must fulfil its responsibility to support those most in need and must be at the forefront of the fight against poverty and hunger in the world. Ahead of the G8 Summit, where Africa will rightly be a priority, and the important United Nations Conference due to take place in September, it is vitally important that the Council confirm the agreement reached by the ministers of the Member States on the basis of a proposal tabled by the Commission and firmly commit itself to honouring the Millennium Goals to support development.
All the European institutions must now particularly show a spirit of compromise and unite around the aspiration to move forward and to achieve our aims, in particular by combating unemployment and insecurity. In the coming days and weeks, we will have to join together to manage a complex situation. In this context, I think we must avoid two dangerous pitfalls: the first I would call the blame game, and the second pitfall I would describe as the deepening of negative ideological splits.
First of all, we must at all costs avoid succumbing to the blame game, in other words making pointless and dangerous accusations that aim in particular to make the European institutions – be it the Commission, the European Parliament or the Council – scapegoats for the difficulties encountered, either at national level or in the face of global challenges.
Of course, the European institutions are not perfect. Who could claim to be! It is because we have recognised that there were certain problems that my Commission, since it entered office six months ago, has decided to draw up initiatives to achieve better communication and to improve the quality of legislation, by avoiding pointless legislation and pointless bureaucracy. That is why we have launched the initiative ‘Better regulation’.
We have also started to consider the transparency with which the institutions operate. We recognise, indeed, that we could all improve the relationship of confidence and responsibility between the citizens and the EU, in particular by adhering more closely to the subsidiarity principle that everybody talks about but that is often not applied.
Take care, though, ladies and gentlemen: the temptation to attribute unpopular decisions to Brussels - what we are accustomed to refer to as Brussels - has already, in the past, caused immense damage, and it continues. We must resist this temptation. Meetings between the representatives of the Member States must not be described as battlefields with victors and losers. Europe is created in compromise and by compromise, and it is above all the responsibility of the representatives of the Member States to explain that and to argue in favour of Europe instead of exploiting national egotism in a way that is negative to our Europe.
(
)
Ladies and gentlemen, let us be frank: if we attack Brussels six days a week, from Monday to Saturday, can we hope that the citizens will support Europe on Sunday? It is difficult, is it not?
(
)
However, there is a second pitfall. This second pitfall consists in now becoming entrenched in ideological splits, even if we admit that there are different concepts of Europe. Encouraging division around two monotheistic political ideas, the monotheism of the market and the monotheism of the State, does no service to Europe. Neither of the two, neither the god of the market nor the god of the State, will solve Europe’s problems. Any attempt to impose on Europe one of the two, a single European idea, is doomed to failure. What we now need is an intelligent fusion of the market and the State that can help Europe to be a winner, not a loser, in the face of globalisation. We do not have any illusions: Europe, by definition, is diverse, and it is good that it is remaining diverse. We have different ideological positions, particularly in the political battle at national level. Any attempt to impose on Europe, through the European institutions, a single ideal, a single ideological direction, would mean forgetting that Europe is forged in diversity, in difference, but also, it has to be said, in the search for compromise and consensus. That is why I think it is vital to transform this period of crisis into a period favourable to opportunities and to take advantage of it to forge a new political consensus. The role of the Commission as I see it is to promote this consensus and to avoid exacerbating pointless and dangerous antagonisms. Without this new political consensus, it will be more difficult to reach a compromise and solutions.
It is in this vein and with this aim that I am launching an appeal to all European leaders, particularly at national level. All of us must demonstrate a sense of responsibility and be equal to the very difficult situation with which we are faced. Thus, I call on all the national authorities to agree to make a serious effort to resist the national egotism which has done such harm to Europe and which is continuing to damage it seriously.
This is what is expected of a Europe that must continue to show solidarity and be open to the world rather than inward-looking. I wanted to make sure that I mentioned this at the beginning of a process in which the European question will naturally be the main focus, but at this difficult time we must not lose sight of the fact that there are others in need of our help. Around 25 000 human beings die every die of starvation or thirst. Europe must not continue its tacit acceptance of this situation. The crucial challenge for our civilisation at this time is to say that enough is enough, and that it is time to put an end to this situation that appals every one of us.
(
)
I call for unity around European values, around, we could say, the European culture, around our European spirit, so that, together, we can build a new political consensus, both dynamic and constructive, a consensus that will make it possible to avoid Europe becoming the first victim of globalisation, but, on the contrary, will enable Europe to win this battle of globalisation. I can assure you that the Commission is fully mobilised and available to contribute to this and that we are quite willing to work with all of you, with the various political groupings, on the condition that you all understand and accept that Europe is not the problem, but rather the solution to the problems the citizens are facing today.
(
)
Mr President, I do not intend to go over the details of yesterday’s debate on the financial perspective. The Temporary Committee of Parliament, under your chairmanship, Mr President, achieved a remarkable synthesis. I have every confidence that this will be reflected in the vote later today. Parliament will then have established a clear vision for the Union and its financing for the coming years.
Between now and the meeting of the European Council, there will be a series of staging posts which, we hope, will lead us to a Council position to match that of Parliament and then to the adoption of the Interinstitutional Agreement.
Of course, the current political context has raised questions about the likelihood of agreement on the financial perspective. I should first of all make it clear that I am in full agreement with the Council presidency that an agreement at European Council level is not only desirable, but also possible. We shall do everything to achieve that.
When faced with political problems, the worst reaction would be to do nothing and remain paralysed. Rather, we should show that the Union remains a dynamic political force, strong enough to continue its work in the face of difficulties. I believe that, at a time when some would expect the Union to be in disarray, an agreement on the financial perspective would show its determination to overcome problems and help generate renewed political impetus."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples