Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.2.3-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Winkler, ladies and gentlemen, one year on from the start of the period of reflection, it is time to take stock of matters. What stage are we at? What can we do to move Europe forward? What can one expect from the European Council?
What is this Europe of results that is being proposed? Despite everything, we have already achieved certain things. That is why I cannot agree with all those who say that Europe is at a complete standstill. I believe that, albeit unintentionally, they are compounding this crisis situation. I understand that it is the analysts’ job to say that Europe is at a standstill, but, as political leaders, we have a responsibility. Do you really believe that we are going to restore confidence among Europeans merely by sending out negative messages? No. In order to move Europe forward, we must revive people's hopes, restore their confidence and demonstrate what progress has been made.
The truth is that, even after the two ‘No’ votes in the referendums, we were able to settle the budgetary issue for the next seven years, and to do so for 27 countries. Thanks to the European Parliament’s contribution, we were able, despite everything, to find a political solution to the very controversial problem of the Services Directive. We were able, despite everything, to relaunch the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment. We have launched a common energy strategy in Europe, something that was unthinkable two years ago. Let us therefore carry on making progress on the basis of practical projects. Let us achieve results so that we can create the right moment to deal with the institutional issue.
In our document of 10 May, we make some practical proposals. Without wishing to go into the details of these proposals again, I shall point out a few of them. To see what is not working in the single market in order to protect consumers in Europe. To see what obstacles still stand in the way of fully completing the great European market. To review our social sphere: what are the obstacles to a more united Europe? At the same time as making progress on the issue of the market, we must make progress on the social issue. On the basis of the existing Treaties, to make progress in relation to justice, cooperation and the fight against terrorism and crime. It is possible, on the basis of the current Treaties, to do more in terms of immigration and of the fight against illegal immigration, at the same time as dealing with issues concerning legal migration. This is a major issue. If the Member States want to do more, then they can do so on the very basis of the Treaties. Therefore, this is not simply an institutional matter, this is also a matter of political will. Let us therefore make progress in relation to justice and security. These are areas in which Europeans are calling on the Member States to do more, because it is obvious today that each one of us, on our own, cannot combat terrorism and cannot face up to the challenges of illegal migration: we must work together.
A great deal more can be done, too, in relation to the external dimension. The right solution is the one included in the Constitution: a Foreign Affairs Minister, Vice-President of the Commission. We must pool our skills and our resources in external matters, but, in view of the fact that there is still no Constitution, the Commission presented a document a few days ago that contains practical proposals designed to increase the effectiveness, consistency and visibility of the European Union in external matters. Moreover, we have made some important proposals regarding subsidiarity, transparency and better regulation for Europe.
We have there a series of practical projects, and that is without mentioning the two major areas that, in my opinion, will project Europe into the future: energy, following on from the Green Paper that we presented, and research. These are two key priorities.
The truth is that our research budget will increase by 60% for the next seven years compared with the previous period. That is why we proposed to create a network-based European Institute of Technology, with a view to giving a European vocation to our research efforts and to attracting the best researchers in the world. Why are the best European researchers now based in the United States? Why are we unable to attract the best Chinese, Indian, Latin American or American researchers here, to Europe? We also need a symbolic project designed to harness our abilities in the field of research.
Thus, let us rally around certain practical projects that can restore people’s confidence in Europe: this is the Europe of projects. The Europe of projects is not enough, however; we must settle the institutional matter too. What are we proposing on this issue? We are proposing to move on now from the so-called period of reflection and enter into a commitment period.
The first important stage is next year, when we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the European Community and the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. I do not believe that the Heads of State or Government can let the 50th anniversary of our Union come and go without committing themselves to this project for living together as Europeans. There are two possibilities: either we make a declaration focused solely on the past, in other words a simple commemoration, or we make a declaration focused on the future, a way of renewing our commitment for the sake of our common project.
As President of the Commission, I believe that I have the duty to ask the Heads of State or Government, who are the stakeholders of our projects, to renew their commitment. I believe that you too, as Members of the European Parliament, will have a right to ask our Heads of State or Government whether they wish to invest in this project for living together as Europeans, which is needed now more than ever in this globalised world. That is what we are going to do.
That is why I have proposed a declaration that is not simply a new Messina Declaration. You will remember the Messina Declaration, following the failure of the project for a European Defence Community; that declaration made it possible to revive Europe and subsequently to create the European Economic Community. It was signed by the Foreign Affairs Ministers. That is no longer possible today. As I have already said: Europe will not be bureaucratic, technocratic or merely diplomatic; Europe must be democratic. That is why all of Europe’s institutions must be involved and why I propose that this declaration be signed not only by the Heads of State or Government, but also by the Commission and by the European Parliament, which occupies a central position nowadays in the process of European integration.
I will begin by saying to you that a spectre haunts Europe: that of Euro-pessimism. While we already had the traditional Euroscepticism of those who have never wanted Europe to be a political project, we now have the pessimism of those who like to think of themselves as staunch Europeans and who very often sink into a state of ‘crisisphilia’, each one of them keen to demonstrate today that he or she has a better idea than the next person about the reasons why Europe is undergoing a profound crisis.
If we succeed in this undertaking, by putting all of our energy into it, we will have an opportunity next year to relaunch the European constitutional process and the process of building a Europe that is an enlarged Europe, and that involves a debate on enlargement.
I do not believe in a miniature Europe, nor in a multi-speed, divided Europe. I do not believe that the response faced with the current situation and faced with the difficulties that Europe is encountering should be to say ‘let us divide up’. Are we going to let one or two countries create a more advanced Europe while letting the others lag behind? I do not think so.
I believe that it is our duty to do everything possible to make Europe, in its enlarged form, work. I say this to you in the light of some previous experience. If I compare the present situation with what was happening in 1992, for example, when negotiations were taking place with our US, Chinese, Russian and other partners, I can tell you that Europe is more respected outside its borders nowadays that it was previously. An enlarged Europe is a prerequisite for a powerful Europe.
Let us hold a debate on enlargement. We recognise that some members of our public have doubts about the rate and the importance of enlargement. Let us hold a debate on the issue of absorption capacity, but let us do so by highlighting the added value that enlargement has already represented for Europe.
That is the Europe that I so earnestly desire. An enlarged Europe, an open Europe, a more competitive Europe, a Europe that is much more than just a market, a Europe that has a political project, and a political project that is based on the idea of solidarity because, without solidarity, the very idea of a Union does not exist. That is the great project for the Europe of the 21st century. Not a closed Europe, nor a small, miniature Europe, but a great, enlarged Europe that is capable of shaping globalisation, instead of suffering the consequences of it.
That is the great project for Europe. If it is to be achieved, it is vital that politicians emerge from the vicious circle of Euro-pessimism and can start to build the virtuous circle of trust, with practical results, of course, but also with this great vision of our great Europe.
What has caused this Euro-pessimism? To a large extent, it has been the shadow cast by the 'No' votes in the referendums in two of our Member States. This shadow has raised doubts about Europe and about Europe’s ability to define a project for us to live together as Europeans. That is one of the reasons why we need to find a solution to the constitutional issue. I should like to make it perfectly clear: we, at the European Commission, are in favour of the principles, the values and the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.
It is a question of knowing, firstly, why we need this constitutional text. What do we lose by not having a Constitutional Treaty? We lose a clarification of the powers between the various levels, we lose an extension of the codecision procedure and an extension of qualified majority voting, we lose a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, we lose an EU Foreign Affairs Minister who would also act as the Vice-President of the Commission, and we lose more effective action in areas such as public health, food safety and even energy, because the Constitution was extending the powers in that area. We also lose an extra degree of consistency in external matters.
On this point, I should like to say to you – and my one and a half year’s experience as President of the Commission confirms this – that we, in Europe, genuinely need what the Constitutional Treaty was providing us with externally: more effectiveness, more democracy and more consistency.
The current Treaties do not allow us fully to achieve all of these objectives. Let us be clear, Nice is not enough.
It is a question of knowing how to overcome this situation. Will we succeed in settling this problem by talking day in day out about the Constitution? Will we succeed in settling this problem by restricting ourselves to a pragmatic approach? I would say no; I would say that we need to avoid two traps. Firstly, the trap that consists in saying, as some people would have it, that the Constitution is dead and buried and that we should only do practical things: that would be dangerous for Europe. Moreover, it would also be dangerous for Europe, I should point out, if, at this point, we were to let ourselves get caught up in a purely institutional or constitutional debate, if we were to claim that we are being held up now while we await a solution to the constitutional issue.
That is why we must progress on two levels, as is explained in our document of 10 May concerning the twin-track approach. The first level relates to a Europe of results, a Europe of practical projects, but – and we are coming to the second level – a Europe of results that is not in opposition, that is not an alternative, to political Europe, and that is, in contrast, a prerequisite for gaining the citizens' support for Europe as a great political project. Therefore, it is not about choosing between a Europe of results and an institutional Europe, it is about choosing them both. We need a Europe of projects and results if we are to have a great project for Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples