Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-26-Speech-1-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050926.11.1-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by extending, on behalf of our group, a warm welcome to our friends from Bulgaria and Romania and to assure them that we look forward to what will be a process of mutual learning. Those of us who are already in this House will have a lot to learn from Bulgaria and Romania on how matters progress on those fronts, while they, our new observers, will have much to learn from the way we work. An understanding attitude on the part of both sides will bring us successes in which we can all share.
You, Mr President, made reference to an identity crisis, and I welcome the opportunity that your speech gives us to take inventory today. You also made reference to the Constitution. I am convinced in the depths of my being that the only way we can respond to this identity crisis in which we in Europe find ourselves is if we succeed in expressing the values that unite us – even across party political boundary lines – in the shape of European constitutional law. It is for that reason that our Constitution – and I am thinking particularly of its second part in which these values are described – must not be set aside, but must remain on the agenda, for the fact is that we need these values, and it is on them that our common future depends. It is for that reason that the negative response from France and the Netherlands must not be allowed to be the last word. We must of course set the right timeframe and be discriminating in deciding when to move forward, and so we need to join with the Commission in considering this. Neither of us must allow the impression to be given that the Constitution is in some sense no longer on the agenda; even now, we are giving thought to how to give tangible form to this Constitution and its essential elements.
I also think it would be a good idea – and I believe that the President is thinking along similar lines – if we were, from time to time, irrespective of which country currently holds the presidency of the European Union, to invite to this House Heads of Government for the purpose of engaging with them in a debate on the future of Europe.
We are of course perturbed to learn that many members of the public regard this Europe of ours as a very distant thing. There is no doubt, Vice-President Wallström, that this is in part a public relations matter, and, as such, one of your responsibilities, but it is in essence about the legislative work that we do, and so let me say on behalf of our group that the Commission’s approach – that we make fewer laws – is, in principle, the right one. What we do, though, must be good; it must be ‘better lawmaking’. The Commission is approaching things from the right angle, but I urge you not to circumvent the procedures agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement, for that is to go down a blind alley. While we can go along with the substance of what you want, I very strongly recommend that you stick to the procedures for consultation with the European Parliament before you pass formal resolutions. If you want to come to a decision as early as this coming Tuesday, it is not enough that Commissioner Verheugen – and I have no idea why it should be him – should unofficially inform the groups today; what is needed instead is constructive institutional exchange between the Commission and the European Parliament.
One of the most important matters to be considered will be, no doubt, the competitiveness of Europe. We agree with Mr Barroso that the debate on the Constitution must not be allowed to distract us from this issue, which, along with the question of how we construct a social Europe, is at the heart of everything. We also need to engage in closer dialogue with the parliaments at the national level, for division between us and them would be a tragedy for the European Union. If we want to lead the European Union into a bright future, we will have to seek ways of doing so together.
I would also like – and with this I shall close, not least because I see that the Deputy Prime Minister is here in his capacity as President-in-Office of the Council – to address the issue of how we should proceed as regards data and the combating of terrorism. We have heard that there are governments that want to deal with this only by enacting framework resolutions, which amounts to excluding the European Parliament. The British Home Secretary, Mr Clarke, has said that the UK Presidency of the Council is prepared to involve this House if we manage to come up with something definite within a reasonable period of time. Speaking on behalf of our group, I can tell him that that is what we want to do, as terrorism needs to be combated. I can assure you of that. We also, however, want Parliament involved in order that there may be a proper legislative framework, and in order that it is not brought into being by the national governments alone. It is with this in mind that I hope that the Council, the Commission and we in this Parliament will work together well, for if we do not, this European Union will find itself in still greater difficulties. We are working together for the future of the European Union, and it is a matter of shared obligation that we do so."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples