Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.2.3-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as well as Euro-pessimism, another spectre haunts Europe: that of autism and its associated hypocrisy and myths. That spectre fuels the one you mentioned. I too understand the attachment to the Constitutional Treaty on the part of those Member States that ratified it and of the majority of MEPs. Like all those who campaigned for it to be ratified – and I was one of them in France – I remain convinced that it contains some crucial advances with regard to the functioning and the democratic life of the Union.
However, we must dispel the myth that, in time, it will be possible to present the same text, accompanied by a simple annex, in the countries in which it was rejected. We must also do away with the hypocrisy of the Member States that have so far been unable to ratify it and that, in actual fact, are quite simply unable to secure a majority, particularly when the people have been promised a referendum.
I believe that we need instead to acknowledge this and to try to forge ahead, as you proposed just now, Mr Barroso, because European life cannot be founded on regrets. We need a revival, advances and progress. This revival – – and on this point too, I agree with you – – cannot be limited to the debate on the institutions. It hinges on policies. It hinges on the Europe of projects, on the Europe of growth and knowledge, and on the Europe of research, of energy and of cooperation in the Mediterranean. As regards the institutions, desperately wanting to keep the Treaty as it stands may not be the best way of saving its substance. I think that the period of reflection – – which the Council appears to be spending its time extending – is, rather, in danger of preserving the Treaty in aspic.
I believe, in fact, that this exercise will soon reach its limits and that we must instead prepare to go beyond it by proposing a new road map. In order to go beyond it, we will need to do what your predecessor, the current Italian Prime Minister, said yesterday and draft a new and simpler text, which permits limited, but crucial, reforms. As for these reforms, they should be clear and easily understood by Europeans and should mainly focus on improving the democratic functioning of the Union and on clarifying the responsibilities among the institutions.
Which reforms? I will mention six of them, and I believe that we should more or less stop there. Firstly, to strengthen the powers of the European Parliament, whose legitimacy is being recognised more and more by Europeans. Secondly, to make the Council's work more transparent when it debates legislative matters, as it is unacceptable that France and the United Kingdom should now place obstacles in the way of this transparency. Thirdly, to ensure that the appointment of the President of the Commission is made by taking into account the votes cast by Europeans during the European elections. Fourthly, to implement a power whereby the national parliaments can monitor compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Fifthly, to review the rules on qualified majority voting on the basis of what was agreed in the Treaty of 2004, in such a way that they are based on the population. Finally, in fact, to bring in a foreign affairs minister. The Member States have already given their backing to all of these ideas. I am convinced that, in all of our countries, the majority of people would be willing to support these reforms. We need initiatives. Let us attach importance to the substance rather than to the form."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples