Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.4.2-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, thank you all for your contributions as well as your criticism. I think it will help in the ongoing discussion.
We can definitely follow up the idea of describing the costs of non-Europe. We should also establish a timetable for a constitutional settlement. That is why we pointed to the opportunity next year, when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, for Member States to agree on the way forward. This is our response to citizens’ concerns. Being able to explain a citizens’ agenda – the people’s priorities – is a step forward.
Mr Kirkhope is not here, but let me say that the fight against terrorism is a very important argument. Are we really convinced that national vetoes should remain? The European Evidence Warrant is one example, and it is still blocked in the Council. This is a very important proposal that would help our law-enforcement authorities to do their work more effectively. We will move forward with these proposals. The Constitution is not dead. The Estonians explained that they ratified it, not because they think that this issue will be solved immediately, but as a political statement. That was their purpose. However, they also realise that we have to look for solutions that satisfy both the French and the Dutch people and the other Member States, including those who said ‘yes’. It is not that easy to tell those countries that they have to do it again because we have made some changes. Today we see no immediate solutions to this problem, but we will continue to show leadership on the constitutional issues as well as changing people’s reality and will set a policy agenda, a citizens’ agenda.
When I entered politics many years ago, I learnt that there were three basic tasks for any political party or organisation. The first: to be able to describe reality, so that people will recognise reality as it is and agree that is the correct way to describe the world in which they live. The second task is to be able to put forward a vision, to say ‘this is where we want to go, that is what we want to achieve one day’. And, thirdly, to be able to change reality, to implement or enforce the changes that we want to achieve.
I think that is still valid. It is exactly the Commission’s line. We have a plan. We are willing to show leadership, first of all by being able to describe the reality we live in. Indeed, we have tried to help by describing what we have heard through our Plan D activities and from the Member States and all the institutions involved in these activities, including visits to pubs. I was in London last Friday to listen to the fears the British people expressed about the European Union.
Secondly, we have been repeating that we want solidarity, prosperity and security, the values that we have set out in our treaties. Thirdly, we have been showing the way, by changing the reality of the world in which we live. That is the way to engage people and to prove the added value of the European Union: by working together to change people’s everyday lives. This we know from the Eurobarometer surveys and from all our contacts. That is what people expect from us. That is how we can come back and approach the constitutional issues, because that is the way to prove that we have to change the way we take decisions. We must prove that we have to make the European Union more open and democratic. We cannot stop that work now and say that we will just wait for a constitution. We have to do both things. We have to move in parallel on both those tracks. That is the only way to regain citizens’ trust.
I feel a lot of frustration, as you do, at having lost a project of the kind the Constitution represents. But the way to remedy that is not through personal attacks or attempts to engage only in bold rhetoric. There has been a lack of concrete suggestions as to what to do in France and the Netherlands, where we have had a ‘no’ and where we have to engage with citizens again to regain their trust in any constitutional project. That is really what we ought to discuss. What kind of agenda can we establish to rebuild trust in those countries that are experiencing many problems?
One idea was mentioned has my strong support. Mr Méndez de Vigo suggested looking at the costs of a non-Europe. I think that is an excellent idea and worth exploring. Let us see if we can do that together and subsequently describe our findings. We have a number of examples to describe to people the costs of non-Europe: energy policy and the fact that we do not have a foreign affairs minister, etc.
It will make us less effective, less visible, less democratic and less open. We definitely have to end the blame game, because we are not alone in this: we need the Member State governments. Why should the Swedish Government, or any other government that has not yet ratified, engage in a project or stick their necks out in a situation where they see that there is no solution? Nobody has presented a solution so far, but there are at least seven or eight different ideas on how to take this project forward. The Commission’s idea is, therefore, to begin by proving the added value of the European project by changing reality and doing our best to respond to citizens’ concerns. Whether it is energy policy, tackling unemployment or fighting crime and terrorism, we have to take action. Meanwhile, we should also point out that a constitutional settlement would help us greatly to act even more effectively. At the same time, we must engage with governments to ensure that we sign up to the things we want to see realised in the future and that we share the same values and ideas for the future. That is a step towards finding a constitutional settlement.
We do not want a two-speed Europe or core groups. We believe that Member States should act in unison and that we should hold the European project together. This means moving on both these tracks at the same time.
We have demonstrated here that we have heard what people have told us regarding the priorities, and I think you agree with me. The first issues people raise when we speak to them in pubs, universities or elsewhere are the tangible issues. They want policies to be settled; they want us to take action on things that affect their everyday lives. That is what they expect from us. This also makes it easier to return to the constitutional issues."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples