Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-23-Speech-3-241"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070523.20.3-241"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, Commissioner Wallström, Commissioner Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, thank you kindly for your invitation to join in your debate on the future of Europe. I would also like to express my gratitude for the very useful visit by your President, Mr Poettering, to the Netherlands on 12 April last.
Europe is a respected world player, and an example to the world. What makes it that is our unique form of cooperation, our focus on solidarity, and our capacity for commitment, united by values and dialogue rather than by battle.
Europe has been renewed in the space of 50 years, which, in terms of world history, is a short period of time. Europe is a young, but adult structure, with a bright future ahead. Step by step, we are facing new challenges, building on our achievements, but always with a keen eye on the public’s expectations and concerns.
One of the main objectives of the new Dutch Cabinet is to further reinforce the support base for European cooperation. If we are to do this, we have to find out exactly why nearly 62% of our population rejected the Constitutional Treaty, and to find the right response to that.
I would first of all like to sketch the background to the Dutch ‘no’ before I go into the detail of what the Netherlands expect of the negotiations for a new Treaty.
Much has changed in the 50 years that separate the Treaty of Rome and the Declaration of Berlin. The Union of today is not only many times bigger than the Community of the Six in those days; it also has a much larger sphere of activity.
The enlargement is a historic success. It was the right decision. We have to realise, though, that following the recent major enlargement, the public need time to adjust. It all went very quickly – for some, too quickly. The feeling of reciprocal affinity has to grow.
In addition to considerable growth, the Union has also experienced an enormous deepening in the past 15 years: the completion of the internal market, open borders, the euro, many new policies in important areas such as the environment, security and law. These are all positive developments in their own right, and have also brought with them a number of new realities that have become commonplace for the public, but not without any resistance, though. For example, the presence of European legislation in many areas is often misunderstood. At a time when citizens had not taken on board the enlargement and deepening, we asked the citizens their opinions about the Constitution.
The question ‘Do you agree with the Constitution for Europe’ was understood by many as ‘Would you like Europe to assume the character of a state?’ or even ‘Would you like Europe to eventually take the place of the Dutch national government?’, which was, of course, a bridge too far.
The term ‘constitution’ has different meanings in different Member States. To some, it is symbolic of democracy, of the curbing of authority. It is that, of course. Elsewhere, however – in the Netherlands at any rate – the word ‘constitution’ has a totally different connotation or meaning still. A constitution belongs to a national state. A constitution says something about national identity – hence the Dutch suggestion of a new Treaty not being a constitution. The symbolism of a constitution was a major factor in the Dutch saying ‘no’.
There was a sense of loss of control, a fear that our own identity would be lost, but a recognisable and accessible government is precisely what people want. People feel there is a limit to what Europe should do. People want control over the areas which we have to tackle jointly in Europe.
Mr President, thank you very much for coming to The Hague. We very much valued your presence and your contribution to the debate. It was an important visit, and thank you very much again for coming.
Needless to say, there were other reasons why people voted ‘no’. There are those according to whom Europe produces too many rules, or does too many things that should be regulated nationally, while others find the administration in Brussels is too lacking in transparency, and concerns about the Dutch financial contribution also played a part. There was too little appreciation of the specific added value of European cooperation. If you think this through, these issues can, to some extent, be resolved in a new Treaty.
To another extent, we must be aware of these concerns that very many citizens in the Union have in our day-to-day policy decisions. We have made a good start on this in the past two years. Subsidiarity and less legislation are at the top of the agenda, not least in Brussels. There is more transparency. We have a budget that enables us to do what we have to do until 2013. We also have the right policy priorities, including climate change and energy policy.
This, Mr President, honourable Members, we owe to your Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, and the presidents of the European Council, namely, and in chronological order, Mr Blair, Mr Schüssel, Mr Vanhanen and now Mrs Merkel. It shows that Europe is prepared to prioritise matters that occupy the minds of the citizens.
Before I turn to the things that the Netherlands hopes to find in a new Treaty, I should like to make a point. A referendum was held in four Member States, which produced two yes’s and two no’s. In total, 18 Member States approved the Constitutional Treaty via their own democratic process. The Constitutional Treaty was widely supported in your Parliament. There is no two ways about it. I hope, though, that we will be able to concentrate on what unites us, rather than on what divides us.
The Dutch Cabinet seeks to find a joint solution in a constructive manner. This is, with a view to Europe's future, very much called for. The points on which the Netherlands focuses are directly related to public concerns that have surfaced over the past two years. No more, no less. This is to gather the necessary support for ratification of the new Treaty.
In this light there are, I think, irrespective of the specific requirements of institutions and Member States, two major joint ambitions regarding the new Treaty. In the first instance, we want to improve Europe’s democratic functioning. Secondly, we seek to enhance Europe’s decisiveness.
Europe's challenge has always been to set up the institutions in such a way as to ensure that as much justice as possible is done to both – at times – conflicting objectives. The institutional balance which the Convention and the previous IGC worked out offers improvements, both in terms of democratic content and power. The Netherlands is keen to retain these improvements, provided that agreement on this can go hand in hand with a credible way of dealing with the citizens’ areas of concern.
I will outline what the Netherlands faces in order to reach a solution jointly in four points.
First of all, the successful method of changing the Treaty must be continued: improving Europe step by step, with a view to striking a balance. As I said earlier, the symbolism of a constitution plays an important role in the ‘no’, and this is why the Netherlands has argued in favour of a change to the treaty, as was the case with Amsterdam and Nice. This is following in the footsteps of the Monnet method: small steps forward, with concrete meaning. It turns the spotlight to the improvements, the democratic guarantees and increased decisiveness. This is how we can have a positive debate, and move forward from under the shadow of the rejected Constitution. In short: the name, the form, as well as the content that determine the image of a constitution require reconsideration.
Secondly, the Netherlands sets great store by improving the Union’s democratic functioning. A very important lesson we need to take away from the referendum is that the Dutch want to be certain that they have a say in the decision-making process. They want their voice heard in Europe. The institutional proposals of the Constitutional Treaty are a step in the right direction. The rule that the European Parliament always codecides when the Council takes decisions by majority is a case in point.
Mr President, it feels good to be back in your Parliament and I have good memories of our meeting during the Dutch Presidency in 2004. We held stimulating debates, which were a great source of inspiration to me at the time.
Improvements are possible, though. In the case of the subsidiarity test for European legislative proposals, national parliaments should be accorded a more important role. If national parliaments pass a negative verdict by majority, this should have consequences. More involvement of the national parliaments should not be at the expense of the European Parliament. This test is done in the very first phase of decision-making. A verdict on subsidiarity is very much something for national parliaments to pass. The European Parliament retains its full role in the codecision procedure. The Commission's right to initiative is infringed upon. As you, Mr President, told me recently, the European Parliament and the national parliaments complement each other. Like democratic partners.
This brings me to my third point: in addition to becoming more democratic, Europe must, and indeed can, become more decisive. I am referring to today’s important topics that concern the public, when I say this: climate change, energy policy, the fight against terrorism and migration require a pro-active, joint approach.
The Constitutional Treaty contains valuable improvements, with more majority decision-making. We cannot get around the fact, though, that people are reluctant to give up vetoes, and are frightened about a creeping increase in powers. This is why we must be quite clear. There is no power without support. Where necessary, we must, therefore, dare take the step towards majority decision-making. And I am prepared to stand up for those choices, provided that the transfer of sovereignty is a conscious choice, safeguarded by proper guarantees. The Union’s powers must be clearly defined. Only then can we ease the hesitation surrounding the transfer of sovereignty. The Netherlands will be tabling proposals to this effect.
A particular point that is related to this has also been the subject of intense debate in your Parliament. I am talking about the relationship between the internal market on the one hand and the freedom of movement on the part of the Member States when shaping their public services on the other. More clarity can be injected there as well, without taking anything away from the internal market. I am in favour of a strong internal market, as the citizens of all Member States stand to benefit from it.
In matters such as the pension system, social security and education, however, the Member States seek to tailor these to the national situation. Europe should allow for this, for example, by laying down a number of criteria for services of general interest.
This brings me to my fourth and final point. I think it is a good thing that the enlargement criteria are included in the new Treaty. We have had the collective wisdom to enlarge the Union and I stand four-square behind that decision. It says something about Europe’s future and the change following the divided Europe dating back to after the Second World War.
Nobody can deny the fact, though, that there is also doubt about the enlargement among the public. In the Netherlands, there is the perception that the Union does not take its own rules seriously, or not seriously enough. We may have the criteria, but these are not strictly followed in the eyes of the Dutch people. As this is something that affects public support for Europe, it is necessary to include the criteria in the new Treaty.
Mr President, honourable Members, Europe has come a long way in 50 years. Expectations are running high. Together, we can set the tone when tackling climate change, the fight against poverty and insecurity in the world. Together, we can use Europe’s economic potential in an ever more integrated world economy. Together, we must commit to a reliable supply of energy and raw materials. Together, we must fight the degrading spread of illegal migration, which is why we need a strong and decisive European Union, a Union that enjoys the trust of those who live in it.
In the Netherlands, I will not hesitate to stand up for a treaty that comprises the four elements that I have just outlined – because I believe that the time is right for this, because I have great confidence in the Presidencies of Mrs Merkel and Mr Socrates after her, and because I believe that together we can take the next step, but above all, because this Treaty is needed to face up to today’s challenges together.
I recently came across the words of Robert Schuman, one of our visionary founding fathers, and I was once again struck by how wise and true they were. In his declaration of 9 May 1950, he said – and I quote – ‘Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a
solidarity’.
Today, however, I am here in a different capacity, as a representative of a Member State – the Netherlands, which is a pro-European country, a country where the overall support for European cooperation has always been – and still is – above the average. At the end of 2006, 75% of the people were in favour of EU membership.
I think that Mr Schuman’s words are as current as ever, and can be guiding in our joint task to develop Europe further. Thank you very much.
It is a country with an open economy that owes much of its prosperity and employment to the opportunities offered by the internal market. A country that wants to play an active role in the world, as is evident from our involvement in development missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, in which respect, the Netherlands relies on cooperation. The Netherlands, however, is also one of the two Member States where a clear majority of the people said ‘no’ to the Constitutional Treaty in 2005, something to which you, Mr President, have made reference.
I know that a large majority in your Parliament were in favour of the Constitutional Treaty, and I respect that, but whatever verdict one passes on the Constitution, what is now called for is a joint solution, one that is acceptable to us all. A solution that does justice to public concerns which came to the surface in the Netherlands and in France in a very visible way; to concerns that are also felt elsewhere: both in countries that have already ratified the Constitution and countries where no decisions have been taken to date.
I am persuaded, Mr President, that obstacles can be overcome, because, in terms of future prospects, there is much more that unites us than divides us, and also because we have a firm foundation of shared values and shared interests.
I would like to start my statement about how I see Europe’s future with the idea that the Union is a rare and successful project. There is every reason to be proud of what we in Europe have achieved in a combined venture.
The Europe that was torn apart by huge wars and sharp social contrasts now boasts a model of cooperation and integration that is second to none in the world. A model that is typified by balance: a balance between economic dynamism and social harmony; a balance between unity and diversity. The European decision-making model does justice to the equality of the Member States, as well as to that of its citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples